MATT PORTER: The JFK35 Podcast is produced by the JFK Library Foundation and made possible with the help of a generous grant from the Blanche & Irving Laurie Foundation.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

NEWS ANCHOR: In the state of Georgia, where there is currently a hand recount being done, Joe Biden is the apparent winner. Again, Joe Biden the apparent winner in Georgia.

JAMIE RICHARDSON: In the 2020 election, the United States had the highest voter turnout in decades, surpassing turnout in 2008 and even the 1960 election. According to the US Election Project, almost 158 million ballots were cast, meaning that 2/3 of eligible voters voted. To make sure voting was safe during the pandemic, voters in many states had the chance to vote by mail or vote early. And in red states that turned purple or even blue, this increase in turnout was partially due to years of voter mobilization to bring more Black and brown voters, who have been historically disenfranchised, to the polls.

We'll speak with one of the people who's been on the front lines of that movement, former minority leader in the Georgia House of Representatives and founder of voter mobilization nonprofit Fair Fight, Stacey Abrams. That conversation plus a brief look at the state of voting and civil rights in the Kennedy era up next on this episode of JFK35.

JOHN F. KENNEDY: And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

[APPLAUSE]

JAMIE RICHARDSON: Hello, I'm Jamie Richardson, and welcome back to JFK35. Last season we devoted an entire series to the 60th anniversary of the 1960 election and its ripple effects to today. We spent an episode focused on the unfinished business of civil and voting rights around the time of the 1960 campaign. Historian Tim Naftali explained how laws and extralegal means denied Black Americans their right to vote in Southern states.

TIM NAFTALI: It was a literacy test. And that test was completely arbitrary. It wasn't state-set. It was the local poll administrator would decide what tests to give you. And of course they would play the-- play a game. They would make the test extremely hard for an African-American and then make it extremely easy or even give the answers a white person.

JAMIE RICHARDSON: In addition to facing barriers to voting, Black citizens were denied opportunities in other areas across the country. The years leading up to the 1960 campaign saw a rise in demonstrations to desegregate public accommodations like lunch counters, stores, pools, and movie theaters. In 1960, both the Republican and Democratic parties had nearly identical policies on civil rights in their official platforms. But it was through the work of Black political operatives and white allies in the campaign that JFK was able to win over the Black electorate, winning an estimated 68% of the vote.

But the issue of civil rights, including voting rights, would not be addressed as quickly as advocates had hoped when Kennedy entered the White House. In his oral history for the JFK Library, James Farmer, founder of civil rights group the Congress of Racial Equality, or CORE, talked about the Kennedy administration's approach to civil rights legislation in the first two years of being in office.

JAMES FARMER: It was their feeling which they expressed to civil rights organizations leaders that a new civil rights legislation was neither needed at the present time nor feasible. That there were enough laws on the books and what was needed was enforcement of those laws. The administration's point of view changed at the time of Birmingham and subsequent demonstrations throughout the country. It was generally our feeling that we had to keep up the pressure. And we saw ourselves as being the role of being in front of the president on civil rights issues, trying to pull the administration forward, recognizing that there would be many who would be in the back of the administration trying to slow them down or pull them backward.

JAMIE RICHARDSON: This pressure from civil rights groups and activists along with violent reactions to demonstrations in the South, notably in Birmingham, Alabama, would cause the Kennedy administration to act, in particular with the president's submission of a civil rights bill to Congress. And there would be gains made in voting rights and abolishing legal segregation in the years to come. But despite 60 years of some progress, there remains much to be done, especially in the area of voting rights. My colleague Matt Porter and I talked with Stacey Abrams, one of the leaders of the modern-day voting rights movement, next.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

MATT PORTER: The fight for expanding voting rights in America has been a long road and continues today. Joining us is one of the leaders in the modern-day voting rights movement, Stacey Abrams. Our guest led a movement to rebuild the Democratic Party as the minority House leader in the Georgia General Assembly. She also ran for governor in Georgia in 2018, where she faced unprecedented voter suppression tactics employed by her opponent Brian Kemp, who served as the secretary of state at the time.

Now she leads the nonprofit voter mobilization organization Fair Fight, which helped mobilize voters in 2020, where Democrats swept the presidency and two key Senate runoffs in Georgia. Leader Abrams, thank you for joining us.

STACEY ABRAMS: Thank you for having me.

MATT PORTER: So, Leader Abrams, we want to talk today about your tremendous work getting out the vote not only in Georgia, but also working overall with trying to get out the vote with your group's Fair Fight and Fair Count. Just to begin, you were elected minority leader or named minority leader in 2011, and one of your goals was to sort of reorganize the voter base in the Democratic party in Georgia. Why was that a big goal for you and what were the reasons that you went about doing that?

STACEY ABRAMS: I stood for leader at the end of 2010 after the November 2010 election cycle, which shellacked Democrats. We lost every statewide office that we held. The Senate was two votes away from a super minority. The House wasn't that much further away. We were heading into a redistricting year and so I thought that would be a great year to be in charge. And so, I stood for leader.

And when my colleagues elected me to serve as the minority leader in the House, part of my mission was to assess where we were and figure out how we could actually achieve majority. But part of the responsibility, and I said this to my colleagues, was we had to understand what it meant to be an effective minority because we were going to be there for a while. And one of my pitches was, look, I've been a minority for a very long time. I am really good at it. And there are specific ways you have to think about navigating when you are out of power but you still have responsibility.

My mission was to build a cohort both within the caucus and eventually through the state party that could really emphasize Democratic values. A belief that education should be public and accessible, and that the quality of that education shouldn't differ based on your zip code. A belief that economic security was best achieved when people made a livable wage and when workers rights were protected. A belief that we had the shared responsibility, whether it's for healthcare access or for returning citizens who were coming out of our incarceration system, which at the time had the fourth highest incarceration rate in the nation even though Georgia was only the eighth largest state.

And so for me, it was about the realpolitik of how people's lives were being led, but the political strategy of how do you put people in positions of power who can actually change the dynamic? And so, my mission was to look at the data, look at the numbers, and figure out what that path would be. And so, began a 10-year plan. In the next couple of years, I met Lauren Groh-Wargo, who served as consiglieri and thought partner.

She actually was the ED of the New Georgia Project which was one of my initiatives. But overall it was how do we build a path to power over the next decade that would restore a sense of progress, but also carry with it policies that can improve the lives of Georgians?

JAMIE RICHARDSON: Thank you, Leader Abrams. And as you were building this new base and revamping the Democratic Party in Georgia, were there any election issues you found? And who did you work with to address them and build a coalition that would ultimately be successful for the 2020 elections?

STACEY ABRAMS: I started working on voter registration efforts when I was 17 as a freshman in college at Spelman College in Atlanta, so I'd had a long-term focus on voter expansion. And from 1991 through 2013, voter expansion was really the name of the game. How do you get more people to participate in the process and leverage the power they have? But in 2013, the Supreme Court under John Roberts eviscerated the Voting Rights Act by essentially invalidating the use of Section 5.

What that meant in Georgia was that the protections that we had enjoyed-- or enjoyed is a strong, is the wrong word. The protections we needed for 50 years after more than 150 years of being kept out of the process, those protections disappeared. And the fight shifted from how do I get more people to participate to how do we stop voter suppression, how do we stop the raising of new barriers, and that required two different coalitions.

When you're expanding the right to vote, you're really talking to people about using power they already have and ensuring they understand it. When you're doing voter protection, you've got to still convince people to vote but you also have to make it possible for that to happen. And that meant working with a coalition of nonprofit organizations that were nonpartisan because voter protection is not a partisan issue. My mission is to ensure that every eligible voter can cast their votes. And so, I worked primarily with nonpartisan organization civil rights organizations committed to the issue of voter protection.

But layered on top of that was a very specific attack that was being waged against people of color in the state of Georgia. And so that meant being more partisan in some of the work that we did because they were clearly targeting voters that they thought would vote Democratic. But that also required that as a member of the state legislature, I had to fight against aggressive voter suppression legislation.

By and large, I was successful. We were successful as a caucus. But there were a number of opportunities for voter suppression that could be done administratively, which is what Brian Kemp as secretary of state took advantage of. Or there were bills that passed that further cemented the suppression and antagonism that was being espoused by the Republican Party in Georgia.

MATT PORTER: And there was a lot of voter suppression going on as you realized, particularly as you started to run for governor in 2018. Do you want to talk to us a little more specifically about the types of techniques you were seeing, particularly as you were trying to test out your new expanded coalition in 2018?

STACEY ABRAMS: Sure. So, voter suppression has three pieces. Can you register to vote? Can you cast a ballot? And does your ballot get counted? In states that experience voter suppression, there's usually an attack on one of those three rubrics. In Georgia, it was an attack on all three. Georgia faced what was called an exact match system that was instituted without legislation by the secretary of state.

It had been initiated by Karen Handel who had been the previous secretary of state, the first Republican to hold that office in the 20th and 21st centuries. She had attempted to institute this system and was told by the Obama administration's Justice Department that it was racially discriminatory. Because what the system said was that when your information was being input into the registration system, it was going to be matched to another database, either the Social Security Administration or the state's DMV.

The problem is the Social Security Administration said, don't use us for that purpose because typographical errors are rampant and we are not designed for that use. The challenge with the state DMV was that one of the most-- one basic example is that if you have a last name that is D-U and then "lach," L-A-C-H, and you separate it-- D-U space L-A-C-H-- in Georgia it is unlawful or it is not administratively possible for the DMV to give you that space. They compress the words together.

But your name on your birth certificate and on your social security card is D-U space L-A-C-H. They would reject your application to vote if they-- if they tried to match it and they didn't look exactly like. It was irrelevant that the administrative rules of the system were inconsistent. And they never gave you notice of why your why your application was being rejected. The reason this was so egregious in Georgia is that Georgia has a very diverse population with often non-Anglo spellings of names.

And so, when the state is being input, when people are typing, if you have a last name that is non-Anglo or that has a hyphen if you're a woman, the likelihood of getting your application rejected was incredibly high. And by the time we got to 2018, of the 53,000 applications that were held hostage by the system in 2018 alone, 70% were from African-Americans and 80% were from people of color. Another example, so, that's could you register?

Another issue was being able to stay on the rolls. Under Brian Kemp, 1.4 million Georgians were purged from the rolls during his eight-year tenure. These were not all people who died or moved away. And in fact, independent analysis showed that hundreds of thousands of people were unlawfully removed from the rolls but they didn't know they've been taken off until they went to go and vote. Can you cast a ballot? Georgia, we saw 214 precincts shut down after the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act and that was encouraged by the secretary of state.

And again, under independent analysis, we know that between 54,000 and 85,000 Georgians were physically unable to cast a ballot because they simply could not get to the polling place. And then, does your ballot get counted? Georgia had one of the highest rejection rates of absentee ballots, especially from people of color, young people, and new immigrant communities. And so, that's sort of the range of challenge that we saw in Georgia. And that combined by the time we got to 2018, to result in tens of thousands of Georgians being pushed out of the Democratic process and either being denied the right to vote or being denied the ability to have their vote counted.

MATT PORTER: Yeah, and that was a disappointment in 2018 unfortunately. And then two years later, sort of the opposite happened. The success not only of Joe Biden getting elected in the general but then two Senate seats at the same time being flipped in the Georgia runoffs, how would you describe what happened between 2018 and 2020? What did you guys do? Because you clearly did not give up. In fact, it seems like you did even more. What was that like and what was it like to win two years later?

STACEY ABRAMS: Well, we knew by the end of 2018 what had happened. Because as I said before, the challenge wasn't simply that these things were occurring. It was that they were being done by and large administratively which meant there was no notice. Unless you knew the question to ask, you had no idea what you were looking for. And so, when we did not win, when I wasn't successful in 2018 in my race for governor, we sued the state of Georgia.

I didn't sue to make myself governor, which is a very sharp distinction between myself and our most recent president. My-- the lawsuit that I enabled was designed to fix the system. And it was during that process that we uncovered so many of the perfidies that had been built into the system by the secretary of state who is now the governor. What we did differently was that we sued the state. And the lawsuit we believe was instrumental in compelling the Republican legislature to fix some of the problems.

Exact match was gutted by and large, it still exists, but the effectiveness and the lead time is very different. We were able to change the rules for purging, although the current secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, actually continued to purge tens of thousands of voters even though the law said he shouldn't. Because there was a quirk in the law and he had the choice of either allowing people to stay on the rolls or purging them and he chose to purge them, despite having made 20,000-plus mistakes with his purging process in a single day.

We were able to, through litigation, compel the state to improve the voting machines. Because one of the challenges during the '18 election was that low-income communities, actually Black communities by and large, regardless of income, they were plagued with broken machines. And so, there was a massive purchase of new machines and allocation of equipment. And then, we were able to mitigate the effectiveness of the polling precinct closures by encouraging an unprecedented level of use of mail-in balloting and early voting.

And so, between litigation changes, advocacy work, and simply an aggressive and unrelenting outreach to voters, not just in the last two years but over the last decade, we were able to transform the electorate. And the metric I'll use there is that in 2018 despite all of the challenges we faced, in what was a mid-term election in Georgia, we had more than-- nearly four million voters voted. On the Democratic side of the aisle, which is largely the side that is impacted directly by voter suppression, these voter suppression tends to target people of color, young people, and the poor. In 2014, the gubernatorial candidate secured 1.1 million votes. In 2018, I secured 1.9 million votes.

And that happened in no small part because we were able to galvanize voters who had never participated in midterm elections. And so by the time you get to 2020 to the race for president, we had seen not just growth but astronomical increases on both sides. But the composition on the Democratic side was more racially diverse and more intentional, because when we needed them to come back out for the runoff, we increased the seismic shift in communities that had largely stayed out of the election. And so, I would say that success was a combination of long-term effort but also a strong, strong effectiveness of voter mitigation.

And the last thing I'll say is that we were also able through litigation to change the rules regarding absentee ballots, which meant not only did we increase the number of people who were using them, we created uniformity in how people could fix any mistakes, which is called curing. And that was lambasted by Donald Trump as some kind of shenanigan, and it was actually simply saying that it didn't matter which county you lived in, you should have the same right to fix your ballot. Because for years if you'd lived in predominantly white wealthier counties, you were able to fix mistakes. But if you lived in low-income communities or if you were a person of color, you were largely not availed, given that availability.

And so, we were able to really mitigate voter suppression in dramatic fashion between 2018 and 2020, which is why there are now dozens of bills moving through the Georgia legislature to reverse our success.

JAMIE RICHARDSON: And we'll get to what's happening now with restricting voting rights. But thinking about the success you've had over the past many, many years, what can the rest of the country and even especially red states with large underrepresented populations, what can they learn from your work from Fair Fight and the other Georgian activists and voting rights folks? What can they learn from this?

STACEY ABRAMS: Part of what we did with Fair Fight starting in 2019 was that we expanded to 20 states. We were in the North. We were in the Midwest. We were across the Sun Belt. We were in states that had faced voter suppression. And I think the first reality is that you have to believe that voter suppression can exist anywhere. It is not endemic to the South, it is not a singularity. It is a tactical maneuver leveraged by partisans in order to protect their power.

And we were very successful. By helping support voter protection teams across the country, we saw real change in the turnout and success rates in Michigan, in Wisconsin, in Arizona, in Pennsylvania. And so, I think it's really important to note that that was one of the pieces that we saw play out across the country as a metric of success.

The second is that if you are in a red state or a state that is more purple than blue, it's a longitudinal process. I started working on this idea in November of 2010. I was able to build a partnership as I said with the brilliant Lauren Groh-Wargo in 2011, 2012. And we built operational support across the state by investing resources, investing time, but also having a shared understanding of the goal. Too often there's an assumption that because something is important to me, it must be important to others.

And we never leaned into that idea. We were always very thoughtful about saying, here's the plan. Here's why it's the plan. Here's how much the plan will cost. And here's how we can make it work. When I launched the New Georgia Project in 2014, it was the single largest voter registration effort in modern history in Georgia. Over time, over the first year, we collected more than 86, 87,000 registrations. But the first thing we did, the first quarter of a million dollars we raised, we gave to other organizations.

So, it wasn't enough to say we're in this together. Because we were able to leverage a platform that others didn't have, it was our responsibility to then invest in those smaller groups, to invest in and create access for them. Because no-- there's no one organization or one person that's going to save your state. This is a collective responsibility, is a collective action, and so you've got to be in it together. Now people are going to play at different weight classes. They're going to have different capacities and they're going to have competing interest.

And I think the most important piece for me was that I always had to remember that even when I was the target of the angst and anger, that sometimes it was about me personally. But often it was about fear of the unknown versus comfort with the existing, even if the existing wasn't what you wanted. And so my responsibility both as the elected leader but also as an activist who believed in this possibility was the patience of people's changing minds, the patience of their doubt, and a willingness to continue to tell my story. And to tell our story and to provide transparency and proof to get it done.

And so it's investment, it's patience, and longitudinal planning, and ultimately it's about recognizing you have to go together. You cannot get this done alone.

MATT PORTER: And you know, certainly your Republican colleagues across the aisle have noticed your work. As you mentioned, we're seeing a lot of bills across the country sort of in that view of saying they want to stop or protect voter fraud. We're seeing bills that you would point out are more voter suppression bills. We've even seen in the news this month that ousted Senator Kelly Loeffler wants to create sort of the anti-Fair Fight with a group that she says will organize Republican voters in droves. What is your response to the reaction to the 2020 elections with all these bills coming out?

STACEY ABRAMS: In 2019, I did two things. I wrote a book called Our Time Is Now-- Power, Purpose, and the Fight for a Fair America and I produced a documentary called All In-- The Fight for Democracy. In both of those offerings, the mission was to make certain people actually knew what was happening. Because voter suppression is or had been in obscurity. People who have never had a problem with voting dismissed out of hand the likelihood that people could have a problem with voting.

If you are used to walking into your precinct and it taking five to seven minutes, it is anathema to you. In fact, it's sometimes unbelievable that someone could have to wait eight hours in order to use the same process. That if you have always had your driver's license because you got it when you were 16, it is almost impossible to imagine the plight of Native Americans who were being denied an ID with their address because the state that required the ID with an address refused to provide the address. And that the law permitted that.

And so, part of what we wanted to do is to make certain that people actually had the language to describe voter suppression. But that also meant that they had the language to reject the notion of voter fraud. And while I think we did a good job over '19 and '20 sessions pushing back on that narrative, nothing was more effective than the 2020 election cycle, when the calls that there was going to be widespread spread voter fraud were completely debunked. What is now clear is that voter suppression is a tactic for maintaining power, wielded at this moment by Republicans.

Across 33 states, 165 bills have been introduced as of today to strip away the right to vote, to create barriers to voting. And it's happening here in Georgia in extraordinary fashion, where they are willing to raise taxes on struggling Georgians in order to hold on to political power. They are trying to solve problems that do not exist. And in fact, the lieutenant governor said that he doesn't really know what the problem is. They're just going to try to solve it. We know that what Kelly Loeffler is doing has no truck with what I do.

Fair Fight has two pieces. Fair Fight Action is a nonpartisan organization that protects the right to vote for every single American. Fair Fight PAC is a political action committee that tries to elect people who are going to help us get that done. What Kelly Loeffler has very clearly espoused is a belief that she wants only certain people to be able to vote. And that she intends to invest in further making it hard for people she considers undesirable voters to be able to participate in the process.

The cheapness of that political strategy, this notion that you cannot win on the quality of your ideas, therefore you can only win and be successful by subjugating your fellow citizens and treating them as less than, is beneath the quality of leadership that we deserve in the United States from anyone who claims to stand for our values. More than anything, I'm a citizen first. And my job is to make sure anyone who is eligible to vote can vote, including Republicans, including independents, including people whose belief systems are wholly incompatible with my own. That's not what she says. That's not what they do.

Their goal is to win elections at all cost. And when that is your goal, the cost is our democracy. For a party that likes to thump its chest about its commitment to patriotism, I can think of nothing less patriotic than a willingness to strip your fellow citizens of their right to participate in our democracy.

JAMIE RICHARDSON: And then, so, thinking kind of backwards in the history of voting rights-- here at the Kennedy Library we're kind of focused on the '60s and thinking about the tremendous energy that happened with so many civil rights groups, people advocating, demanding justice from the Kennedy administration and their own states. And so, there was-- this led to the Voting Rights Act. And there's still a long ways to go as we know. What are your hopes for the future and the fight for expanding voting rights? And then what do you think about your own future in this regard?

STACEY ABRAMS: As dismayed as I am by the current attack on voting rights as you pointed out, this is a longitudinal problem for America. I mean, we began our time as a nation by stripping everyone of participation except for white men who owned property. Roughly 6% of Americans were able to vote in the first elections. It was Thomas Jefferson who helped to change the property ownership standards so more white men could participate. But women were told to be silent, Blacks were relegated to less than humanity, Native Americans were erased from the narrative altogether.

And the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790, I believe, it essentially said that if you were Latino or Asian, don't even bother trying to participate or even come here. And so, we've watched our nation in every century make advances towards participation. The 15th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, the 26th Amendment, which recognized that if you were old enough to die for your country, you should be old enough to vote for its leaders, with the 26th Amendment. But different parties have created their power through voter suppression. Democrats did it in the '60s.

Basically from the Jim Crow era through the 1960s, Democrats were both the purveyors of voter suppression but they were also the architects of civil rights. And my belief is that the instinct of America to atone for its sins will always lead to us trying to expand access to the franchise. And we can see that in the current administration and the current move in Congress to pass HR 1, the For the People Act, and to pass HR 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. I believe we will continue to fight voter suppression.

I believe we will continue to beat it back. I believe it will always be a challenge because those who are losing power will always seek to hold it by creating silence as opposed to creating better ideas. So, my responsibility is to continue the fight to work in Georgia and around the country to build up the muscle memory of fighting voter suppression, to remind people that we've done it before, and we can do it again. But to also engender in everyday people this notion that their rights to be heard is also directly tied to the right to the American dream and their right to success.

That democracy is not magic, it is medicine. And it is a medicine that we have to take again and again because the minute we stop, the insurrection, the infirmities, the incivility manages to sweep through us in dramatic fashion. But when we show up and participate, we get better. And so, my job now and for as long as I can see is going to be to protect our democracy in any way I can.

JAMIE RICHARDSON: Thank you for that. And also, just on top of all of your achievements and work and accolades, it also came out a few years back that you write novels under the pen name Selena Montgomery. One, how do you find the time to do that? And then, how did it feel when that cat was out of the bag, and how did you even get inspiration to start on that kind of side hustle?

STACEY ABRAMS: So, I started writing novels in law school. So my third year of law school, I wrote my first novel, Rules of Engagement. It was supposed to be a spy novel but publishers didn't believe that women wrote spy novels or that men would read spy novels by or about a woman, and certainly not one with a main character who was African-American. So, I made my spies fall in love and sold it as a romance novel. I was never ashamed of it.

I just happened to be writing at the same time that Google was coming into existence. And I was also publishing at the same time my thesis on the operational dissonance of the unrelated business income tax exemption. And then, those are not exactly compatible thoughts for most people. But I loved writing and it was indeed a side hustle. I had a lot of school debt and a lot of obligations and so-- and luckily had an opportunity. Once I wrote my first book, I always had a contract.

So, I wrote eight novels as Selena Montgomery because once I started writing as Selena, Selena came into her own space. But my face was always on the books and my name was inside, I just kept the identities separate. When I started writing nonfiction, first Lead from the Outside and then Our Time Is Now, I put my name on the book in part because those were very clearly stories about my journey, but also my musings on politics and power and success and business development. So, a range of issues that also were part of me.

And then, I actually am coming out with my first legal thriller in May and that will be under my own name. So it's the first time my fiction will be in my name.

JAMIE RICHARDSON: That's excellent. Congratulations on not only that, I guess, which is very exciting. And so if anybody needs any book recommendations, we have fiction and non-fiction here. And so Leader Abrams, we truly want to thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us about this incredibly important issue for our nation. And we wish you all the best and look forward to future successes and doing what we can. Thank you.

STACEY ABRAMS: Thank you, Jamie. Thank you, Matt. I appreciate you guys having me.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

JAMIE RICHARDSON: Thank you for listening to this episode of JFK35, a podcast from the JFK Library Foundation. We hope you enjoyed this episode. Visit our podcast page at jfklibrary/jfk35, where we'll have more information on topics mentioned in this episode, including James Farmer's oral history and more information on voting rights in the Kennedy administration. If you have questions or story ideas, email us at or tweet at us at JFK Library using the hashtag #jfk35. If you liked what you heard today, please consider subscribing to our podcast or leaving us a review wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks for listening and have a great week.