The son of rosie castro a prominent activist. He and his brother joaquin now representing san antonio were going off to stanford and harvard together. Secretary castro was elected to the council at age 26 the youngest in that citys history and became mayor at 35 and the youngest mayor of a top city in the United States. At 2012 gave the keynote at the Democratic National convention, the same speech that put barack obama on the national map eight years earlier and in 2014 president obama asked him to serve as secretary of housing and urban development, a department with a 48 billion dollar budget and 8,000 employees that worked to expand housing opportunities for americans. As a candidate for president , Julian Castro focused on the needs of the most vulnerable, a leader in the field on policy and take bold positions, including the role of iowa and New Hampshire in our voting process. Last night he made news by being the first candidate to say out loud that iowa and New Hampshire should not go first, sparking a National Debate and he purposely made that statement in iowa and wanted to come here and talk with iowans about why he stands by those comments. Im pleased to welcome secretary Julian Castro. [applaus [applause]. A few words about the format. I am going to ask a few questions first and then well open up the floor. I have not shared the questions im going to ask with secretary castro or anyone associated with his campaign and neither i nor secretary castro knows who in the audience is a supporter or the floor is open and were hoping to have an exchange of ideas. My first question is the you know, iowa is a small state and a state thats relatively inexpensive to campaign in and doesnt it kind of make sense, in a sense, to have a small state go first so that as the nominating process is pretty open and not just to the frontrunners who can raise a lot of money . First of all, thank you very much, laura, for moderating tonights event and thank you to everybody for being here. Its great to see folks who are out here vetting the candidates as we head toward the iowa caucus which is only eight weeks away, which ive said is always eight lifetimes in politics. If i can, let me just start off by, as i see it, why were here tonight. For those of you all who have been following the campaign weve been marching to the beat of our own drum. Weve been doing things differently from the other campaigns. I have been speaking through since standing up for the most Vulnerable People in our country, i was the first to put out an immigration plan, to say that Donald Trumps cruelty doesnt represent who we should be as americans. Ive been fighting so that we can reform our policing system in this country, even though most candidates wont touch that. Ive visited a trailer park in walkee, iowa several months ago to talk to folks like matt chapman i think is here tonight after they got a letter from a private equity group that had bought out the trailer park and all of a sudden, the residents got their rents raised more than 60 , including Arletta Swain who lived there four decades. I stood up and put forward a plan to make sure that we eliminate lead as a major health incident, after what we saw in flint. And the only candidate to put a plan forward to revamp our foster care system, too many young people who end up in our foster care system dont get to graduate from high school, and end up incarcerated and dont realize their dreams. And i see whats in keeping with two parts of this campaign, number one, telling the you truth at a time when you have a president who wont. And then secondly, standing up for those who are often left out, those who are cast aside. Im going to tell the truth. Its time for the Democratic Party to change the way that we do our president ial nominating process and were going to have a conversation about that tonight. Part of the reason for that is that i dont believe that the two states that begin the process, iowa and New Hampshire are reflective of the diversity of our country or of our party. Now, the iowa caucus has existed as the first chance for people to vote since 1972. Our country has changed a lot since 1972. Our party has changed a lot since 1972. Its difficult, i think, impossible for us to tell black women, for instance, that were relying on them to help us win in 2020 after theyve helped us so well in louisiana and alabama and other places, and then start in two states that hardly have any africanamericans at all. To answer your question, laura, there are some good things about iowa and also New Hampshire, one of those things is that compared to having to campaign in a state like california or my home state of texas, it is less expensive to do that here, right . You have less media markets, you have less ground to cover, and so theres certainly some advantages starting off in iowa and New Hampshire. At the same time, some of those advantages, for instance, the media markets, they get washed out because everybody raises their rates for advertising, you know, in iowa and New Hampshire. And so it becomes almost as expensive to campaign in these states as a bigger state simply because of the economics of advertising, the cost of that, and also, there are different ways to think about the fact that you have a smaller state, but states with a lot less density than other states, right . For instance, i imagine we have people in the room who have been part of campaigning. One of the easy things to do in a urbn urban environment is bl walking, canvassing. And there are easy places in iowa to go block walking, con vasting than other parts of the countries. As we look at other states to consider to go first, we should look at the urban to rural sort of mix, right . And pick a state that has had a good rural to urban mix. I think in iowa that it actually tends to tilt toward a more rural state and the same thing in New Hampshire. You have one city, manchester, that is basically close to boston. The biggest city in the state. I actually think that we can find places that represent that balance of urban and rural better than these two states. I have been writing about ive been seeing the iowa cause cuss on bleeding heartland and sometimes say being an iowan and criticizing the caucus is how to not have friends and influencing people. And you took it a step further for saying iowa shouldnt be first and i commend you for coming here and talking to us about that. And when ive talked about deficiencies in iowa caucus system, this is the state that launched barack obama to the nomination in 2008 so doesnt it show that even an overwhelmingly white state can give a fair shake to people of color and candidates of color . People make a good point. Barack obama won here in 2008, but we know that whether were dealing with the president ial nominating process or anything else in life, right, one time, one exception does not prove the rule on anything and ive been surprised at how many people have thrown away their logic when they argue this. Sure, barack obama won here, but i think its also true that neither New Hampshire or iowa have ever sent a person of color to represent them in the United States senate, for instance, the idea is that its not going to happen, but its harder and makes it more difficult because the diversity thats represented in a lot of other parts of the country is not represented here. The other point that ive made very clearly is its not just about racial and ethnic diversities. The iowa caucus youve pointed out and others pointed out is not set up to be voter friendly. What if we didnt know about the iowa caucus and told you this is the way were going to have voting sets up. Theres no early voting, you can only vote at one time 7 00 at one night. If youre disabled or a shift worker, its hard to get there at that time, hey, you cant vote by mail, you cant absentee vote. Thats the only time that you can vote. You would probably think that the republicans came up with that system of voting and say, hey, forget it, these republicans are out to get us again, without letting people vote, suppressing certain votes of people with disabilities or shift workers. Thats what they have done and we have criticized them for that kind of activity. Well, we have to take a look at our own house and my point is we can construct our president ial nominating process in a way that actually reflects our values. This is about whether were going to live by our values as democrats to encourage more voting instead of limiting that voting. Even though weve had one exception in terms of a person of color getting elected. That doesnt mean that it doesnt make it harder for other candidates of color to get elected and very importantly for communities of color to elect their first choice candidate as well. Its not only about the candidates, its about the communities as theyre represented and who they get to actually vote. And the consequence of that is that a lot of momentum is created by what happens here in iowa so that means that when we do get to the most diverse states after iowa and New Hampshire, that those states actually have less people to choose from. Youve already seen some candidates drop out of this race, because of how theyre doing largely in these two early states. You may well see more people drop out of the race. You certainly see people drop out of the race after Iowa Caucuses. That means that so what if we have a nevada and you have a South Carolina, if you have california and texas on super tuesday. Theyre not getting the same slate of candidates that iowa gets and that New Hampshire even gets. That makes a difference. Thats one of the reasons we need to reorder the schedule. That leads into the last question im going to ask before turning it over to the audience members. The question of the barriers to participating in the caucuses, its a huge issue that you raised. Shift workers, care givers, people with disabilities and i was very excited earlier this year when the iowa Democratic Party came up with a proposal for a virtual caucus where there would have been six windows for people to call in during the week before and i expected tens of thousands of people to participate that way. As we know, the Democratic National committee determined that that was not going to be secure and you were the first candidate to release a statement when that happened and you said that it was an affront to the principles of our democracy for the dnc not to allow the virtual caucus to go forward. I was also very disappointed by that. But maggie kirtz published an articles 5 38 and she quoted Cyber Security experts said it would have been an absolute hacking nightmare for people calling in and registering their votes. Is that a fair thing when we know foreign governments are trying to affect our elections and people voting by phone . Of course its a fair criticism and we know that russia as well as others may be trying to influence our elections, but principally russia. The security concerns are valid. My problem with that plan, it seemed there was a lack of coordination and i know i give a lot of credit to the iowa Democratic Party, theyre fantastically organized and i have no complaints. This is maybe one of the best organized democratic parties of any of the states in our union as you can emergency why. Because everybody takes it as they should so seriously, they invest time and energy and resources, but its clear at the end, that something happened there with the Democratic National committee and they had originally seemed to indicate that they would accept that virtual caucus plan and then they rejected it. The concern that they gave for Cyber Security is understandable, but my frustration was, hey, well, why wasnt this worked out ahead of time and why are we finding out when its too late to go back and do anything about it to fix it and then they came back with a plan to do satellite caucus locations and i understand that in a couple of weeks, or a week or so, were going to find out what the satellite locations are. But even that doesnt match the ability that people need to vote in another way at another time. You need to, in the least, the iowa caucus needs to open up the ability of people to participate at different times and essentially to have an early voting component to it and not make people show up in one place at one time and by the way, without a secret ballot. Theres no secret ballot. Lets say that youre an employee and you show up and your supervisor is there at the same caucus or the owner of your business if you work for a small business. And you know, how do you feel if that person is passionate about a candidate and theyre saying, hey, come over here with me, you know . Because you all have been to the caucuses and people have been trying to convince one another and caucus for their candidate. There are different concerns that ive had and i had hoped that the virtual caucus would also allow frankly mixed status families who may have one undocumented immigrant who lives in that house, but they also have folks who are able to vote, especially in the latino and asianamerican community in this state and i would hope that would take their Blood Pressure down and make people more willing to participate in the process because youve got a lot of folks out there they dont want anything to do with anything that seems like the government or that theyre going to be, you know, have to provide their or show up in front of everybody and so the more that you can provide the intimacy of a secret ballot and their ability to participate that way, the more likely theyll be to show up during this trump era especially. The virtual caucus would have been better than the traditional caucus at that and we dont have that. Regarding the satellite caucuses, the iowa Democratic Party told me that 173 applications were submitted for satellite caucuses and those will have to take place at 7 p. M. On monday, february 3rd and the committee hasnt met yet to go through those applications and sort them out. In any case, i think its clear that a lot more people would have been able to participate in a virtual caucus. So now well go to questions. Please try to keep it brief so we can get to a lot of questions, were hoping. Over there. Well, first of all, thank you, secretary castro, for showing up tonight. Honored to ask this question to you. What do you believe is the most effective and cost efficient method of getting underrepresented communities to register to vote . Thank you very much for the question. I actually believe that the states that have done automatic Voter Registration is the best way to get voters registered to vote. We have a number of states that are automatically registered to vote. When a person turns 18, they dont have to fill out a card or go online. We can accomplish that. Florida and california have already done that and we pair it with pre registration so that people who are juniors and seniors in high school are able to pre register, so theyre already in the mode of getting ready, getting prepared to become voters when they turn 18. I think if we do that, then what youre going to have is at least youll have communities that often have not registered, automatically registered and then you have to concern yourself whether youre republican or democrat or independent, with turning those people out instead of also getting them registered to vote. As far as i understand it about automatic federal registration, generally thats if you go to get a drivers license or some other government office, its not they automatically register every person in the state, you know, once they turn 18. Yeah, i think that there are a range of different ways of automatic Voter Registration with the most progressive ones being when people turn 18, but even if you do it for somebody when they get their drivers license, that they automatically registered when they get that drivers license, thats still registering a lot more people than the number of people who are registered in most states in this country. So, i believe that we need to move in that direction of automatic Voter Registration and like i said, a pre registration, in the years to come i think that we should move the voting age down to 17 because the problem that we have right now is when somebody is 18 when you think about it theyre kind of in a time of transition and usually just graduated from high school when youre 18. And if youre just graduated from high school either youre in the working world, a college, university or sometimes in the military. And thats a time where youre doing something new. A lot of people have left home, right . Theyre not tied to the same social structure that they are when theyre a senior in high school. If you allow them to get registered at 17, you can use the fact that theyre part of our Education System to create that spark of enthusiasm for actually participating and voting because even though people get registered, even when they get registered at 18 today, as you all know, the actual Participation Rate for people 18 to 34 is a lot lower than it should be. Well, we can help change that, i think, starting them off when theyre actually part of the Education System and you have your government or civics courses that year and you have people encouraging them to be registered, to start voting, thats a lot more powerful than waiting until theyre off on their own and you know, nell get to it when they get to, so for forth. Thank you. So i just want to somebodys going to come around with a microphone. Sorry, i forgot to announce that. There are a couple of people with roving microfoenphones. Hello, thank you for taking my question. While there are some things that i agree with you on and would push back to say we should have 16yearolds voting so were capturing more of kids at that age. As the mom of a 17yearold i would have been totally confident with they are voting last year and im excited shell get to vote in the caucus, but i want to push back. As a des moines resident and im a transplant to iowa so i grew up in new jersey thinking that this was really dumb that iowans got to vote first and now that ive moved here and seen many times, i think bradley was my first caucus, so ive been through several times of this process and ive worked through the system. I do want to push back that, first of all, that black and brown communities are not i mean, i love in a black and brown community, im the minority in my neighborhood and i like that and i think that there are many people here who take the time to get educated on a wide variety of issues. My pushback for you is, what other state are you going to go to where there is the history and the people that understand policy. When i post about policy on facebook, my friends back in new jersey cant keep up with me because theyre just not as wellversed on the finer points of everything from education, to family leave to all of these different things. I think that thats another thing to consider when youre looking at like not just the affordability of media, which is going to get priced out anywhere you go, but theres also hotel rentals and renting office space. Like iowa is cheap. My house i live here because my house is 10 of what it would be back in new jersey. So i guess i want to push back to you on while nowhere is perfect, there is a lot when i look at my daughter voter in this election, i know that she as a twoyearold wanted to bang on doors for john kerry and as an Elementary School student was, like shaming people at obama headquarters because they werent working as hard has she was. So theres a history that i think is important to recognize here in iowa that people are trained for this. The question for anyone who might not haven about able to hear, relates to iowans taking their roles seriously and being more educated about the issues and black and brown communities do exist in iowa even though were predominantly white state. You make a very good point that the people of this state take the role very seriously. Thats one of the things that i appreciate about iowans and all the visits that weve made here. Your an absolutely correct that people here know the issues better than most in the country. Theyve followed them. They go and they vet the candidates. I joke around in most places if somebody shows up at your event, it means theyre there to support you. And here in iowa it means youre number nine out of 11 people theyre going to listen to that month. [laughter] but thats a great thing. Its great that iowa and New Hampshire folks vet candidates well. Here is the thing though, i think that happens because you are first and that because that sort of muscle, so to speak, has developed over the years and i think that that would also develop in whichever state has the coprominence of setting the tone and a lot of people are taking it a lot more seriously and taking it more seriously because the candidates are actually coming to you, right . I mean, if you have an opportunity to see all the candidates and to meet them and feel like youre in power to make a decision that is going to bolt somebody forward or goat your first choice candidate can win, of course people are going to put more time and energy into it. But i would think just as much in another state if that state were to go first. So what i actually believe should happen is that we should go forward with the dnc putting together a task force of people from around the country, the way that happened before 1972, and people from different backgrounds, different experiences, and they should get together and create a system of rank order in these states. Some of those that go into that, how reflective the state is of the diversity of the party and country, the size of the state and how easy or expensive it is to campaign in that state. Also if we say our values are we want to make it easier for people to vote. How easy does it make for people to vote . Is there early voting . Is there vote by mail . How many voting locations do they usually have in most of their areas. We can come up with a thoughtful, effective way to rank order these states and then you also give an incentive to states to actually get better about how accessible they make voting to people. If we do that, then i believe that the president ial nominating process will, i think, be fundamentally more fair to people who are voters out there and who want to be able to vote for certain candidates if theyre stated down the line and its not first. I think it would be more fair to anybody whos running in future years. This isnt something that im calling for in 2020. Like i said the other day on the debate stage. Somebody called for the december debate stage rules to be for candidates. Im not interested in changing the rules of the game. What im interested in it changing for the future and we have time for the dnc for that change to happen and so thats what i hope will happen. [applaus [applause] hi secretary castro. Im dave, a professor at university of delaware previously at university of iowa. Ive written a book on the caucuses and in fact, it says that we should start in small states, maybe not iowa, but this process works pretty well. I would say that your concerns this year in particular would strike me as would be more persuasive to me if the polling suggested that in the more diverse states coming up, South Carolina, nevada, that the order of the candidates wasnt essentially the same as it is in iowa and New Hampshire. Right . So Iowa Democrats in particular or the research that ive done with my colleagues over the years, are a pretty liberal bunch, actually a very liberal bunch. This is not a conservative Democratic State on this democratic side and i think they reflect the ideology of the Democratic Party really well. The question becomes how much on prescriptive representation, and ideology. The fact is that iowans do a pretty good job. The question was david has written a book about the iowa candidacy. The order of the candidates and polling is similar in the more diverse states as iowa. While they may not reflect the Democratic Party, ideologically they represent the democrats pretty well. Thank you for the question. And it was intended as a systems based system not candidates. Were dealing with an odd kind of fit for a candidatebased structure when it was originally developed tore issues. So theres disjuncture there. Secondary, let me challenge you polls on the other places. The polls are different for joe biden in iowa versus South Carolina. Direction of but still, i said its also the ability of the people to elect their first choice candidate, rit . And its not mostly or only about the politicians, its also the people. As you know, for instance, when single district, the primary argument hasnt been about the politicians its been about the ability of usually people of color or protected classes to elect their first choice candidate and so if we analyze it from that perspective, actually there is a significant difference from iowa to South Carolina and theres also a difference a growing one, i think, in nevada. And i think thats going to be born out when nevada caucuses, you know, even though thats a caucus and i actually believe that we should have primaries, not caucuses, but theres a difference there. Overalthough in my vision for how we could would do this in the future we would take all of that into account. My point its been almost 50 years, do we believe that the country has changed enough in 50 years that our party has changed enough in 50 years that we owe it to ourselves based on our values to go back and look in a thoughtful analytical way at whether we should change this . I believe yes. And you know, people can make their arguments as part of that process. Is there a chance that things would stay the same . I would never, you know, i know that the iowa and New Hampshire vogts have been very, very good at, you know, keeping their status, so its possible, but i actually think when folks dig deeper and they look at different ways to analyze this, theyre going to see that theres a better way to do this that is more reflective i think of the country and the party and allow people to vote in their first choice candidates at a greater rate than the system that we have in place now. At the very least what iowa needs to do now, it needs to clear up the obstacles to voting. Theres no reason at all that you should only have one time with no early voting. That disadvantages people with a disability, it disadvantages people that have to work that night at 7 00, that thats when they work and they cant just take off work to go do it. Its also, this sounds mundane, but its true. You know, were having this caucus in a place that has sometimes unpredictable weather this late january or february. Do do we always say on election day over the years, oh, i hope it doesnt rain today. Right . Because if it rains today less people are coming out to the polls to vote. Were having our very first president ial voting opportunity in two places that send to have bad weather during that time. Thats not the biggest argument or most important one, but thats just another reason that i believe we need to look at in total how we do this and revamp it. I can tell you ever since more than a decade ago, i started raising some of these concerns with democrats. That we could never do that, that New Hampshire could never let us do that. The New Hampshire secretary of state would never let us do anything for absentee ballots and let me say, ive heard that argument, also, some people say, well, New Hampshire has this state law that says that theyre going to vote first. Theyre going to have the first primary no matter what. Well then the dnc makes that decision, New Hampshire or any other state does not make that decision and you remember in 2008 when florida and michigan tried to move up their primaries earlier and what did the dnc do . It stripped them of any influence in the process. So, when it comes to New Hampshire, i completely respect that theyve done, what is so fascinating about New Hampshire is that they have even more of a Cottage Industry and media that covers this stuff than even iowa does. Its amazing the inenvironment ov over there. And take it seriously, too. If the dnc comes up with a process reflective, and New Hampshire tries to be the first primary when they were not there by the fair process, take away their influence in the process as they did florida and michigan. Hi. Im samantha boehner, a student here at drake university. Thank you for coming to tonight and clarifying your comments. I was just curious about the fact that many billionaires have threatened to do commercials that would flood the states. Certainly weve seen a tom steyer commercial. [laughter] and many candidates who have since dropped out have cited donors and polling and the reason that they have decided to no longer run instead of i dont even think this and so, instead of iowa and New Hampshire. So how do you respond to the idea that going to larger states will actually make it harder for candidates without the bandwidth of multimillionaire and billionaires and without the name recognition to succeed . The question relates to going to larger states early in the process would advantage billionaires. First of all, i agree with you on how troubling it is that folks basically able to buy their way on the debate stage and polling ranks. I dont know ultimately whether that will be the deciding factor in terms of whether somebody wins. Yok it will i think that we need to get big money out of politics, work out citizens united. [applause] and tamp down ability to selffund and i dont think that the americans are looking for a billionaire savior right now and i dont think that its ultimately going to determine the outcome of this election. I do agree we should find ways to address it and with regard to your point, larger states versus smaller states, i think that should be a consideration, i absolutely believe that should be a consideration that we should, as we analyze an updated version of the president ial primary process, we should consider, okay, well, how much does it cost to campaign in this state . How big is the state and so forth . I just dont think that that should be the top or even the second most important part of the whole thing. I would like to thank you for bringing up these important issues because it reminds us how important it is to our representation for people of color in the process. Most of the people that weve heard from, of course, are white and they do not want to give up their power or the privilege that they have here in iowa. And theyre not taking into consideration the fact that, yeah, the latino population here is very low. The number of africanamericans here is very low. And so we do not have the chance here in iowa, a fair chance to be able to select the candidates that will work for us, for people of color so we have a lot of white saviors who feel [applause] that they still want to call themselves liberals, but they continue to vote or they dont want to give up that power. So i would just like to thank you for bringing that. The question m to do with white power and thanking senator castro, because there are a lot of white people who dont want to give up the privilege that they have. I wanted to bring this issue up because like i said, i think its an issue that needs fob discussed and frankly, as youve seen, most candidates in the middle of this process dont want to bring it up and let me just be honest. I mean, you all have heard it, some people said, oh, well, youre going to lose iowa, going to lose New Hampshire big, youre just bringing this up because its sour grapes or, first of all, no, its not. Secondly, let me point something out, im 45 years old. If its ka catastrophe to bring this up, i thought long and hard whether i wanted to bring this up. I do because it needs to be said. We need to make a change reflective of the values that we have as a Democratic Party. Let me also say that just because we change the process doesnt mean that we should elect somebody who is latino or latina or africanamerican. What it means is that we need to have just a process that better reflects the people who make up the party and the count country. There are people who are running this race who are white that i think could do a fantastic job as president ap also move us forward on issues of racial reconciliation and improve the lives of the people of color. Thats not what its about. Its know the about guaranteeing an outcome. We never want to guarantee an outcome in our democratic process, but we want to empower people and make sure that everybodys vote, everybodys voice has the same weight in our country. Republicans dont do that. They spent the last 20, 30 years trying to do everything that they could so that especially the votes of people of color suppressed take away early voting on sundays because they know that theres a preponderance of africanamericans who after church will go and vote early on a sunday. All right . Enact things like voter i. D. Or maybe the worst of it gerrymander these congressional districts in ways that are beneficial to conservative candidates. We want to be the opposite of that and making sure that we look at our own house, that we make these changes is one more way that we can demonstrate to ourselves and to the American People that we actually stand up for equality and fairness for everybody. And then we elect who we elect. I dont think somebody should get elected just because theyre black or latino or just because theyre white, but i think that everybody ought to have a fair shot at making the case and right now, the way that its structured, not only is there not a fair shot, i dont think theres a fair shot for the voters themselves in this process. Thats the most important thing. Want to say briefly before the next question relating to minority representation in the caucuses, in a primary everybodys vote counts the same no matter where you live in the same and in the caucuses the way the delegates are dispersed its an advantage to have support spread along a large area and not concentrated. In iowa more than 75 of the africanamericans live in five counties and in poke county, in 10 census tracts. The opportunity to influence the delegates for individual candidates are much more limited because the people of color are not spread evenly across the state of iowa and its an issue when you Start Talking caucuses versus primaries. Okay. There. My name is emily ewing and i am graduate here and im a transplant to iowa as a pastor. One of the things our congregation cares about is ministry with people whose loved ones are in prison and incarcerated and one of the things that our governor has said that she would like to change, but has not actually made the changes on is restored rights for people once they leave incarceration who have been convicted of felonies, so i think i know where you stand on this, but im curious. Youve been talking a lot about making it easier for people to vote and not a huge thing that would increase a lot of voting in iowa. Yeah, thank you for, now, asking that question. I absolutely believe that we need to allow people who have served their time to be an i believe to vote. I actually believe we should allow some people who are incarcerated right now to exercise that right to vote. [applaus [applause]. I hope that the governor follows up on that and that the legislature will work towards a day when formerly incarcerated people have a chance to vote. We know that throughout history that those kinds of laws were basically used to suppress, especially the votes of africanamericans in this country and especially in the south. You see that all over the place. I was very happy in 2018 when florida passed that proposition 4 which now you see what happened with that. The republican governor has gone out of his way to try and subvert it to not allow that to go into full effect. In texas, in my home state of texas one of the things i think should be a First Priority like it should be here when democrats regained power in the legislature and in the Governors Mansion is that we make it easier for people to vote, to exercise that franchise. It methodically as methodically as they have been in little ways and big ways, youve got to go back and make sure you expand it and thats one way you can do it. Thank you so much for being here secretary castro. On the topic of our party being the party that pushes for Voting Rights for everyone, washington d. C. Has more people than wyoming and rhode island and do not get a vote in congress. Puerto rico would be the 29th largest state and does not have Voting Rights in congress, we have five inhabited colonies that we continue to treat like colonies. What would be your policy the way we interact with people who are part of our country who are not given Voting Rights. The question relate today d. C. Statehood and puerto rico statehood. I hope that in the years to come, that Puerto Ricans will have that ability to self determine. When it comes to washington, d. C. , i think in washington, d. C. That that is been less controversy over, the people have expressed a willingness and the desire to become a state. I think thats a desire they should have the opportunity to do that. However that is done with a binding referendum and so forth, but that they have the ability to do that if thats what they want. For all of the territories and d. C. And puerto rico they need to have a stronger voice in congress. Because what we have set up right now is almost a throwback to treating them as lesser than, and we cant do that anymore. We see in puerto rico and woodside puerto rico after hurricane maria, for instance, the impact of that. We have the president and basically treated rico as an afterthought and didnt live up to the obligations that the federal government should have looked up to and because of that a lot of people have suffered, we need to change that. My name is taylor. Im speaking as someone who is an hiv advocate and ive met a lot of people who havent come out for 25, 30 years about their status. Im just being devils advocate here. If someone goes to caucus about issues they care about, sometimes theres a Statement Associate with the things they want to speak about, and so its almost like their voice might be suppressed. I just want to hear your take on i guess what you think on the caucus and how we could kind of help that issue. Question related to marginalize voices in the caucus and whether people might feel prohibited or speak at. People have to declare themselves in front of everybody, a lot of people, all of us, how many times are we trained growing up like you dont talk about politics and just dont, just dont rock the boat. Dont ruin dinner or dont whatever whatever. You dont want to do that. Maybe thats why theres only a 16 turnout rate is because you have to go declare yourself in front of everybody and you know folks really passionate about it, trying to get you to sport another candidate. Certainly if youre there and youre concerned about an issue that is controversial or that you believe or, in fact, does have a stigma associated with it, yeah, i mean i have no doubt that can make people less appear some folks who come from ecstatic families have about showing up and thinking this is going to entangle me more in what the government is doing . If somebody doesnt like the way im voting they will know how im voting and are they going to take some sort of action, some retribution against me because i was supporting this candidate instead of a candidate that they wanted . I mean how may many times havee seen on video over the last several years youre these videos were somebody think im going to call him on going to l Homeland Security or turn you in. Two people that are american citizens but thats the attitude that too many folks take. Let me be clear. Im not saying people in the caucus do that. What im saying is right now in this trump environment people are afraid to show themselves. Even american citizens have every right to exercise the right to vote. Having a system that is a secret ballot i think allows them to do that more comfortably and would increase turnout versus a system were have to show yourself. I actually remember as a precinct captain before the 2004 caucus talking to people felt inhibited. They were not from marginalize committee for one woman felt bullied at her 1988 caucus and she said im never doing that again. If thered been an opportunity for her to cast a secret ballot, she would have. Thank you. First off thank you for being here. Secondly, we can always twist numbers around and make it so we can get our point across. Because we talk about a space, black women and how we get them to give them about elected people in this country we also understand that if it was for black women and they were getting the bochum Stacey Abrams that would be the governor. [applause] one of the things we also look at is that with iowa being the first caucus state we have a voice to help put that in, get that upper people in the country because its not just sending the first africanamerican out of i will also send the first woman out of iowa. So that showed us getting together and being able to bring individuals together not only in urban poor Rural Communities that we were able to then send the message to the country that deals with these deals. Im not sure the caucus is the problem. I think the problem is the ills we refuse to deal with and deal with the reality. The racism, the phobias. Because what stops latina from voting isnt the caucus. Its gerrymandering. Whats stopping the blacks and latinos from voting isnt the caucus. Its racism. And so you have other cities, other states that are predominantly people of color they cant elect officials of color because of those issues. So changing the caucus isnt going to resolve the issue. Dealing with the ills resolve the issues and when we look at, we havent elected a a person f color and that type of thing, then went to look at how many senators do we have in this country . That does not represent people of color in this whole country. When we look at congress does not represent people in this whole country. Those are the things i think we need to focus in on. And i think when individuals begin attacking the caucus, to me i have to ask the underlying message there, rather than do with the actual issue at hand. Because what of the things that doesnt stop latinos from voting or people of color are women, you know. Man, we look at the fact that education, the disparity in education, the disparity in medical and medical care, with so many disparities, the caucus, where is that even fitting in solving our issues . Because we hold the first caucus in iowa. We are sending a message and also would say that theres a documentary called black des moines, voices seldom heard, that i really wish you would listen to because iowa was the first to train black soldiers. Iowa desegregate the schools before brown v. Board of education. Iowa took the first to make sure that an individual could not be sold or held as property. Iowa has been the first before other states are deep and get it passed and we find out in larger states they have more problems than we have. About more problems, and picking boston and that type of thing, but its good when youre comparing city to estate. So my question to you is that when we look at the real issue, because you said truth to power, when you said we want to speak the truth, when we look at the real issue, is the caucus the real issue or are these bills the real issue . And have you brought the focus to be able to stop the republicans and even democrats from dealing with the real issue that we face people as color . [applause] the question of q is criticizing the iva caucus not getting to the real issue which is systemic racism and of the bigotry and thats what we need speedy thank you very much for the question. I think ive addressed those issues bluntly and boldly than anybody else in this campaign. Lets take the issue of Police Brutality. I am the only candidate during the course of this campaign was not only put forward a plan for how to change that in america but hasnt been afraid to stick on that, to continue to highlight that issue, to name the names of people who have been the victims of Police Brutality and also to say that we should change our system a different way so people dont experience that no matter the color of the skin or where they live. Another issue has been the issue of immigration. I was the first one to put forward an immigration plan in this whole campaign. Why is that . Because a lot of the candidates frankly are scared because they think donald trump has the upper hand on an issue like immigration. Because they think when a lot of people here a candidate talking about being compassionate toward immigrants, that some voters will run the other direction. You know what . I dont believe that. I believe the best way to handle the issue is to be straightforward and fears about it, and ive been that. In fact, i think that during the course of this campaign ive addressed issues of Racial Justice more forthrightly than any other candidate that is running in this campaign. Ill continue to do that. Ive done that on education, on housing, Police Brutality, on immigration, on working families across the board. Weve had a whole conversation since i launched this campaign and even before when i was had secretary i lead the effort, made them a significant steps to desegregate opportunities than ever before with something called affirmatively furthering for housing. When i was mayor of sanitary with passed an ordinance to try to ensure that a somebodys gender identity or Sexual Orientation that they could be treated the same company would be treated like secondclass citizens mayor at san antonio. Ive been building the work before and also during the course of this campaign that address of those underlying issues. At the same time i dont think it serves anybody to stay quiet about the structure of our elections because if we say lets just, you dont have to do anything about the iowa caucus. Do we have to do anything about the fact that that secretary of state in georgia dont so may people off of the roles and thats the reason that Stacey Abrams is not the governor of georgia today . In other words, we need to address that. We also need to address this. This isnt the extent of what ive addressed in this campaign but im not going to shut away from addressing it either. I agree with you that over the years iowa has made a lot of good things happen. I fed a wonderful experience with the people here. I have nothing but good things to say about the people there. Everybody has been nice, they have been wonderful. We well received in the state. But if you think theres something lost when you come to two states in iowa and New Hampshire the dont have the same level of diversity that you in a number of other states. And that its time even if people disagree with that, dont you think its time that we we look at that, how we order our president ial nominating process . 50 years [inaudible] its been almost 50 years. In 2024 or 2022 it will be 50 years since we did this. Like, i think every 50 years in our democracy, when a country has changed so much and our party has changed so much that its worth taking a look at. I believe when you look at it if we are true to our values we will suggest we can make an improvement. Thats what hope we do in the years to. [applause] thank you. Thank you for being here. My name is vickie brown and ive been an africanamerican in Black Hawk County, waterloo, one of the largest africanamerican communities, we do have a lot of disparities, but i would like to say this, that iowa voters actually, mine is more of a statement than a question, okay . [laughing] i just like to keep it real. I will voters, we get to see the candidates up close and personal, and its a good litmus test because people are looking at us. Iowa can be as progressive as it can be conservative. And if it wasnt for the caucuses, we would be a deep red state just like nebraska. And im not looking forward to that. Now, ive seen a lot in my lifetime. Ive done a lot in my lifetime, and i tend to continue to fight this good fight. We will continue to go forward. I would like to help elevate the voices to make sure that Iowa Caucuses does matter and we will continue to caucus. Thank you so much for letting me make that statement. Thank you very much. [applause] the statement reflects something ive heard from a lot of i would democrats that if we didnt have the caucuses, will be a deep red state. Some people take tom harkin was able to win his first u. S. Senate race in 1984 because of all the organizing that happen before the caucuses earlier that year. That maybe first of all thank you for being here. Thank you for your great leadership as part of Black Hawk County democrats. Had wonderful visit there in waterloo. Thats probably true. I do think because you have both parties competing for the votes here every four years, more often than that and all the other races that happened, that may well be true. I havent seen any analysis of that but it makes sense. That should be considered. I also dont believe that should be the main reason that we start our whole president ial nominating process in one state or another. In fact, if her going to do it that would why dont we go to taxes which is a red state now but we could get those 38 electoral votes, you know, make texas offers dominate state. Thats 38 electoral votes. What i think it shows is that people take it very seriously. I recognize that. You all have been fantastic, the number of people who have met the candidates, Pay Attention is impressive but i believe that again, that the lack of diversity and the way the caucus is structured makes it hard for people to participate, and that weve seen it and the numbers of people to participate. Overall the number of people who participate in the caucus is nowhere near what you get in the most contested primaries in the nation or certainly in a general election. I think two things are true. Number one, we need to reorder our primary process but secondly if i were keeps its caucuses in the future, if they intend to stick with the caucus instead of a primary, then access issues and early voting issues in these other issues that go with Electoral Reform should be addressed in the state of iowa. Again, i said this and made i said facetious, but im serious that if i told you, if he did know anything about this process and i told you how it was set up, you would think a rightwing republican set this process up because it really makes it harder to vote than it should be. Be. Theres a reason to do it, even if you were to keep your first in the nation caucus status, there is no reason to make it this difficult compared to other ways for people to be able to vote. It needs significant change and thats just the truth. Whether im running for president or you never hear my name again, all right . Thats the truth. Hello. Im a senior at urbandale high school. Why do believe we should have primaries instead of caucuses . Why are primaries better than caucuses. So thank you very much for the question. Thank you for being here. You know this very well, better than anybody, theres often a difference in the way that essentially support is tallied in caucuses for such primaries. And primaries its just a straight up people go and vote and the person who gets the most votes, a win. In caucuses, here and in nevada, i think by doing there are only three states that still have a caucus. In caucuses theres a formula for how those votes are allocated, how support is allocated across the state so its not as simple as whoever gets the most votes wins. As more pointed out there are different ways that geographically if you get more support just to an area like lets say you do great in des moines but not very well in the rural areas, somebody that does okay in des moines and then does okay about the state uniformly like that support for the state can do better. That intersects with okay, you have africanamerican population, latino population, Asian American population that tend to live in the city and a few other places in the state, not as much in the rural areas of the state so caucuses are done carefully. Also caucuses tend to be like this one where there is not long early voting periods. You should up on one night. Or in nevada they do it whether it is kind of a a form of early voting but its not that expensive. It is a a better system i think that iowa, but because that allows for opportunity to vote but its not as extensive as a primary would be. An example i like to confirm 2016 is that iowa and connecticut have roughly the same size of electric like lika 2 million voters and i will caucus dozens of visits by the campus and dozens of field offices and hundreds of Campaign Staff scan thursday. We had about 107,000 democrats put his the inner which is the inner caucuses in 2016, connecticut primary which was after 36 states had already voted, after Hillary Clinton had basically locked down the nomination, they had 322,000 people participate in their prime rib. Hillary clinton. Hillary clinton did one event there and Bernie Sanders did see her. It just shows you even without a massive mobilization come so much easier for people to vote in primary. Anyone . Didnt see you over there. Im jacob. Im a a long lifetime i were resident here. So ive got up also going up going to the whole caucus process. A couple things i want to point out. First thing i think as i wins, its that i think i could for the sole cretin is we as i was really part of cells on our caucus process. I think some of this something cool about it i will caucus is it allows for engagement the conversation you dont get anywhere else. That something we as americans struggle to do and and i thinki went it something we, like you said, you could in most states, everybody here is to support you. You might be ninth under list, like you said, but we go to our caucuses and thats whats so cool is we have come saying we are going to be a group, im going to say this what i like castro, this is why you should like after. Pete buttigieg guys anybody elses faith is what i think you should come and vote for us. You are not seeing that. How is it that a primer is going to help us have similar since the best we can have those conversations that the primary not messerli will give us of conversations . And then quick question to add to it in a way, you also mention the fact you discussed extending voting ages too young and 17 and 16. From my history and what i have known, yes, our political system is in school but a lot of students choose not to participate in politics and would rather vote what the parents are saying or off of just blindly not doing actual any research so how would you address Something Like that or even relating it back into caucusing . How would you allow them a fair chance to caucus . Question related to the Community Building caucus and its a neighbor meeting people have a chance to to advocate for the candidates. Yeah, i certainly think theres some positive aspects of the engagement that happens with this process. The fact that folks are passionate about the candidate, that that night they articulate why they support both candidates. Theres also a flipside that we are talking about, about the fact there are a lot of people who may be intimidated by that. They dont want have to declare in front of everybody whether it be their neighbors or their supervisor that may be at the same caucus i, whoever it is, they dont want to have to declare publicly who they are supporting. I believe that might be one of the reasons if such a low turnout rate is because most people if they Pay Attention to politics in the first place, they are even less likely to go and stick their neck out if they have to go in front of everybody in a very contested realm where people are very passionate about hey, why are you not supporting my candidate . I think that makes people less likely versus secret ballot to go and cast their vote. Now, the question is how can we encourage those kinds of conversations to happen not just on one night but along the way . We need to get better as candidates also about making sure we are visiting as many states as possible. I made a pledge at the beginning of this campaign to visit all 50 states and weve been trying to, i think were somewhere near 30 states so far. I recognize that you shouldnt just go and visit one state all the time. You should try and get different people from different states engage in the conversation. With respect to young people, look, i know we have a turn at issue with young people. The turnout among people 1834 is very low compared to people over the age of 65. I want to do something about that. I do think moving the voting age to 17 would help do something about that, especially if we reinvigorate Civics Education in our schools. That something republicans and democrats so far can agree on, that we should invest in more Civics Education in our high schools so that people fully understand their role in furthering our democracy, and that they are empowered to do that. If you partner up, boosting Civics Education with moving the voting age to 17, or even if you dont with the voting age to 17 if all of the states to preregistration for 16 and 17yearolds so they get registered vote when, as soon as they turn 18, thats a way we can help ensure young people are more informed, more concerned and oriented towards being participants, actively and the democracy. And they will take it seriously and be more likely to actually know and cast a vote. We have time for one more question. Somebody over there . There are two more. Can we take two more . Can you keep it brief, the question, please. Hi, secretary castro, first of what to say im not on almost 200 or so want to thank you for endorsement of her. Shes young professional latina and we need more of us in politics. The second thing i i want to th on is you have talked about have caucus is for exclusionary. Its held that night, they can be hours long. Exclusion repairs, workingclass, students even. The university of iowa and i listed of both released statements say they will not be canceled and classify the caucus. I was wondering if you will condemn i was schools that dont cancel the caucuses first into which in the democratic process . [laughing] [applause] question about i will university that are not canceling classes on february 3. Condemn, i wont start off my statement by saying that i condemn the university of iowa or iowa state but i will say i would encourage i was state and the of iowa, we will be in grinnell tomorrow and all the of the institution of Higher Education that have a lot of 18yearolds and people that are eligible to vote. Look, this is another example, why in the world if you are especially a Public State University would you not allow time for your students to be able to go out and caucus and not miss class . This is what i talked about, yall. It does make any sense. It doesnt make any sense, and in my mind the values that we have as democrats of allowing as much access to the voting booth as possible, are getting further and further away from the reality of the iowa caucus. When you have decisions like that to not allow students to go and caucus, that makes it harder to keep the caucuses here. And so they should do that. I hope they revisit that decision. I also think that employers should allow, like a lot of employers in many places on election day they will allow the employees to go and cast a vote that day. I believe that employers, more employers should willing to allow their employees go caucus that night if there are ship workers that work that day. We were in ottumwa today, right, we were in water polo, waffle accounting today, wobbler city yesterday. We are in places where there are john dear factories, and other manufacturing in this state. Think about all the people and it is difficult if theyre working shift that night for them to just take off and go caucus here so yes, i will say that i would encourage the university of iowa and i was due to allow the students to go caucus by not having classes during that evening of february february 3. One last quick question. Thank you, secretary castro. I just want to ask about, so one of the things that as compelled as your argument seems to be one of the things that dissuades me from, when you look at polls in say South Carolina or nevada at a think this was brought up earlier by the professor, i mean, take Kamala Harris who unfortunately out of the race. Let me ask you this. Do you think if southcom on had come first you to think she wod not have dropped out . Because i come to this thinking that i dont think that i would being first is what caused and a credible candidate like her to drop after i dont think that was the issue at hand. A lot of people have pointed out that in many ways voters in South Carolina thought it would be okay to vote for barack obama in 2008 because they saw him win in iowa previously. So what does it say about the way in which we choose a stick to go first . If when we look at the polls now it doesnt seem like choosing what of the states to go first, a state that is more diverse makes much of a difference. I take your argument by think if we accept that argument, which is basically the diversity of the state does make a difference, does the diversity of the company make a difference what does a diversity of university make a difference . Does the diversity of the newspaper, media outlet make a difference . Just say it doesnt make any difference in this context i i believe is basically to say that no company, no university, no media outlet, television and film, also should have a responsibility to evaluate the diversity of their enterprises. If were not even going to make the effort to ensure our democracy itself reflects our countrys diversity and our parties diversity why should the private sector do that . I dont know if any one candidate in this election would be doing better if another state were going first. But i do believe that overall and in the longterm, absolutely you would have different outcomes if different states went first and second, versus tenth or 15th. I dont believe all of a sudden everything is going to change just because you move it to a different state, but over time i do think thats true. The other thing of voters in states that come later have my is well, whats happening here in the polls in iowa . They will go first and so i may love this candidate, but they dont have a chance over here, so you know, whats going to happen . When barack obama one, part of that was proving that he could win in iowa, right . Thats what gave him more support down the line. But again, one persons ability to do that at one moment in time does not disprove that theres an issue here. Thats the only time it has happened, and i think theres some natural elton disadvantages to going in states that dont reflect the diversity of our party and of our country. I want to thank everyone again for coming here and thank secretary castro, for answering the questions and also well played to avoid the headline of Julian Castro condemns the university of iowa. [laughing] [applause] let me just say thank you to you, and look, we are coming to the end of this process before the caucus, and i just want to say thank you to everybody whos been a part of it. Again, for a seriously you all do take it, and for helping to ensure that we have an active democracy. The fact that you are here, even if we disagree tonight, the fact you all are here participating, you are making sure we think about these issues, whatever happens with that, that something for all of us to celebrate as americans who want a stronger country. And as a party who care about making sure that we live by our values and that we celebrate the ability to participate, everybodys been willing to participate. Thank you all for being a part of that, all right . [applause] [inaudible conversations] and finney what is interested taking a photo with secretary acosta, please lineup over to the side and a vote will be able to get a photo. Over here to your left. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] we will leave the remaining moments of this event you can see it in its entirety at cspan. Org. Lets go live down to a conversation with ukraine deputy Prime Minister turkeys expected to discuss his countries ongoing conflicts with russia, relatis with nato and the european union. Its a busy time for you. Its fairly busy in washington all the way across town with Certain Committee hearings taking place i want to welcome you here. Needless to say this is incredibly important time for you to be here in washington, in some s t