Group recruits, grooms female candidates
EMILY’s List starts ‘most aggressive’ campaign in its history
Thousands of women across the USA are exploring whether to run for office as part of an activist wave that began with the election of President Trump, prompting EMILY’s List, a major national force for grooming female Democratic candidates, to begin the “most aggressive” recruiting campaign in its 32-year history, the group told USA TODAY.
The non-profit that elevates Democratic women who support abortion rights is doubling its staff dedicated to recruiting and training them to run for office, from school board to city council to Congress, as it moves swiftly to supply more resources to the millions of women who marched in Washington and in cities nationwide as part of the Women’s March on Washington a day after President Trump’s inauguration Jan. 20. Their Run to Win effort includes a new online portal where women can learn about how to run for office and leverage its 5-million-person network to match with local volunteers interested in making phone calls, hosting house parties or just asking other women they know to run.
“This is a moment for women across the country,” Stephanie Schriock, EMILY’s List president, said in an interview.
“We’ve done some (recruitment), but never like this. We have made very good gains over those 32 years, but when a moment like this comes where women are feeling empowered to take charge and take control of their communities we want to be there and be encouraging and make sure they actually run.”
Since Election Day, more than 4,000 women have reached out to EMILY’s List to say they want to run for office, including 1,660 since Jan. 20 alone. That’s four times the number who reached out in the previous 22 months combined.
It’s the latest example of Washington’s professional advocacy groups trying to harness the energy of a grass-roots movement shaping itself into a progressive resistance to Trump’s agenda. Other examples include growing financial support for groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and participation in protests organized by groups such as MoveOn.org outside the offices of U.S. lawmakers. Separately, the organizers of the women’s march are forming local chapters, which now number about 700, spokeswoman Kaylin Trychon says.
The Emily’s List data correspond with anecdotes from local groups also trying to recruit and support female candidates. Dianne Bystrom, director of the Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University, helps run the Iowa workshops of a national network of training schools. The e-mails began rolling in on 9:30 a.m. the day after the election, she says. The February training sessions filled up in less than eight days and had to move to a local Holiday Inn to accommodate an estimated 125 attendees.
It’s the third time in her lifetime, Bystrom says, that there has been this much interest in politics from women, citing the feminist movement of the 1970s. Then there was late 1991, when law professor Anita Hill testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she was sexually harassed by Clarence Thomas during the Reagan administration. Thomas was undergoing confirmation hearings for his nomination to the Supreme Court. Many women believed that Hill was questioned harshly, which spurred a wave of female candidates elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992, a cycle that was dubbed the “Year of the Woman.”
“This is happening all over the country,” Bystrom says. It’s a reaction both to Trump’s agenda and the unexpected loss of the first female candidate to represent a major political party, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, she says.
“Younger women in particular are saying, ‘Maybe I have been too complacent, have taken too much for granted.’ You’re looking at all the things you’ve had in your life and wondering if you’re going to have access to them anymore,” she says, citing access to affordable contraception, health care and safe abortion.
A new Emily’s List video pictures women waking up to Trump’s victory on television, holding their tongues at a dinner table conversation, Googling stories about Republican plans to defund Planned Parenthood, lacing up their boots and putting on the signature pink hats from the Women’s March.
“You’re ready to do something,” the video says, so “face the day” and “stand up.”
If successful, the women’s efforts could help change the composition of local government. Every Latina, African-American and Asian-American Democratic congresswoman now serving in Congress is an EMILY’s List candidate. “What I love about all of this is they now realize that they weren’t alone in their communities,” Schriock says.
According to Pew Research, only about 2% of Americans have ever run for federal, local or state elected office. Those tend to be white, male and well-educated. Women account for half of the adult population, yet they are just a quarter of those who say they have run for office. While women account for 20% of the U.S. Senate, 18% of the House and 24% of state legislators, only 10% of governors are women, Pew says.
The interest in civic participation is converging with a revolu- tion in technology that allows any American interested in running for office to pinpoint where the opportunities are, says Jim Cupples, director of RunForOffice.org, which crowdsources data from communities across the country and is partnering with dozens of non-partisan groups. The site has seen a 131% increase in people signing up to run for local office since the election. Just in the past week, it has had 58,000 visits, 90% of which are new.
Technology is driving a dramatic change in the traditional protocol for candidate recruitment whereby prospects are groomed by local party power brokers, Cupples says. “I shouldn’t have to be in the Rotary Club and have them tap me on the shoulder. You’re so much more capable now of running a campaign with the digital infrastructure that used to be a lot more expensive.”
The most common initial rung for first-time politicians is city council, because many of those positions are uncontested. For instance, on Cupples’ November 2014 Oregon ballot, two-thirds of the positions were unopposed or had no filer. “That’s where all of the opportunity is,” he says.
Female legislators have been among the first to push back against Trump’s policies. Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey filed a federal lawsuit over his immigration order; Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh is extending a policy directing policy officers not to ask about a person’s immigration status; and in the New York Senate, Andrea Stewart Cousins and Liz Krueger introduced a bill to protect women’s access to abortion and contraception in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned or Obamacare is repealed. Finally, a majority of the immigration lawyers volunteering at airports are women.
One major assumption underlining Clinton’s candidacy was that her election would motivate women to put themselves up for elections at all levels of government. In reality, Trump’s victory is a greater motivator, says Kari Winter, an expert on gender and race at the University of Buffalo: “Trump has provided a really powerful, galvanizing force for political engagement among people who thought they had the luxury to being disengaged.”
“When a moment like this comes where women are feeling empowered to take charge and take control of their communities, we want to be there and be encouraging and make sure they actually run.” Stephanie Schriock, EMILY’s List president