Discussing Effective Lawmaking with Nevada Speaker Jason Frierson

Alan Wiseman (00:00:10):
Hello. My name is Alan Wiseman. I’m the Associate Provost of Strategic Projects, and a professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University, and along with Craig Volden at the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy at the University of Virginia, I also co-direct the Center for Effective Lawmaking. In today’s version of our Conversation with Effective Lawmakers video series, we are delighted to welcome Mr. Jason Frierson, who served in the Nevada Assembly from 2011 to 2015, and again from 2016 to 2022, including his time when he served as a Speaker of the Assembly over his last three terms in office. Speaker Frierson received his bachelor’s degree from the University of Nevada-Reno, and his law degree from UNLV. After law school he clerked for Nevada Supreme Court Justice Myron Levitt, served as deputy attorney under then Attorney General Brian Sandoval, and he also worked in the public defender’s office. Upon entering the Assembly, Assemblyman Frierson was immediately successful at navigating the legislative process in his effort to advance his sponsored bills from introduction until ultimately becoming law, and this pattern of legislative success continued upon his entry in the Speaker’s office, so much so that we, at the Center for Effective Lawmaking, actually identified him as the most effective lawmaker in the Nevada Assembly in his final three terms in office. Speaker Frierson, thank you so much for taking the time to join us today for a Center for Effective Lawmaking conversation and interview. We really appreciate the time that you’re spending with us.

Jason Frierson (00:01:40):
Oh, well, thank you for having me. It’s an honor.

Alan Wiseman (00:01:43):
Great. So, as I described to you a little bit earlier, we’re going to aim to ask you a series of fairly general questions about your experience in the Nevada legislature. But in answering the questions we’d really appreciate any particular examples you could draw on from your own experience to help to provide even greater context for some of your perspectives on lawmaking in Nevada, and, more, generally speaking. Cool. So with that, as a bit of a warm up, what we’d like to do is just take a step back, well before you actually entered public office, to talk a little bit about your background and the ways in which it shaped your approach to lawmaking. So, you know more specifically, in your mind, how did growing up in Compton then moving to Nevada for college, and you know, ultimately what you experienced early in your law career, how do you think this really influenced your decision to run for a seat in the Nevada Assembly? And what were you hoping to accomplish upon being elected to the legislature?

Jason Frierson (00:02:40):
You know it’s funny. When I reflect back I joke that I’ve always been a politician. I grew up in Compton, California, but I happen to have grown up in between two rival gang areas, and I found myself, even through middle school, having to navigate even walking to and from school. And you know, having, you know, I called it a sense, somewhat of a sense of diplomacy that I had to develop in order to be able to be in good standing, with, you know, a block to my right and a block to my left. And you know, I think that came to serve me well later. Even in high school, we had an incident in school where I was the student body president, and a kid had broken into school and graffitied all over school, and the school had threatened to cancel senior prom and senior night and everything else and the senior class was out, essentially boycotting. They walked out, and they wouldn’t go to class, and they insisted that the administration hear them out. Honestly at the time I wanted little to do with it. And the principal, Father Milbar – I’ll never forget – the principal looked out and said, “Those are your people. Go talk to them.” And so I went out there, and, you know, told everybody, “Look, they’re not going to cancel, we just need to, you know, calm down. And the person who did this needs to, you know, feel compelled to come forward.” It just so happened that my government teacher was looking out the window and didn’t know that the principal had directed me, so she had my head later for what she thought was me leading the charge of people boycotting school. But it was, you know, those were lessons in, number one stepping up and number two as a leader, you know, having to take responsibility for things, sometimes not things of your own making. And so, you know, I think those things, and growing up in Compton and having family in law enforcement, there was a dichotomy where I felt like there were some services and engagement in the community that I was really driven to advocate to address. Whether it was, you know, foster care or criminal justice. Quite frankly, also a healthier respect from the community for law enforcement. I think all of my experiences drove me to want to, you know, have an impact in that regard and that carried on into law school and student government, as well as being a public defender and a prosecutor. Those were all the things that kind of drove me to to advocate for things that really helped the average person.

Craig Volden (00:05:09):
Terrific. Great to have that context. And let me second Alan’s thanks for joining us today. You know all of that early experience, we’re interested in how that manifested once you got into the legislature. So, I’m thinking about the very earliest days, you know. In Nevada, do they have kind of an orientation or new member training that you engaged in? How did that go? And I guess, you know, now that you have years of experience after that, what do you wish they had told you then that you know now?

Jason Frierson (00:05:42):
We did have a very robust training program when I started. I do think as term limits started to matriculate folks out that became less because there were fewer people who had been around, who had learned those lessons. When I started, I was taught everything from fundraising, how to canvas, how to knock on a door, being prepared with your elevator speech, and knowing why you were wanting to run for office, and what that really meant. I think that has, I think, fallen off a little bit over the years, not just here with my colleagues in other States, as legislatures are newer and less experienced, and having a larger number of new people, that has not been as big of a part of the process, and I think that legislative institutions are suffering because of it. But I was fortunate to have some pretty strong mentors and training established when I started that I tried to continue when I was recruiting new members. You know, I’ll say that, I think that really, fundamentally helps folks understand why they are doing this and what the sacrifice actually involves. You know, if I could look back, I was pretty engaged. I had lobbied for local government a couple of sessions, so I was pretty familiar with the process. What I learned and a lot of this I learned even after I was Speaker. I wish that I had emphasized more the fact that as a policymaker you might be the first politician somebody’s ever met. And the interaction that you have with people is not only a lasting impact on what they think of you, but what they think of politicians and policymakers, and so, as much as you know, when you’re in the legislature, you think everything is the most important thing in the world. At the end of the day, it’s much more about how you carry yourself and how you treat people, and you know, you have to remember that anything that you pass can be undone as soon as you’re gone. And so you can’t be so invested in that that you forget about how you treat people, both staff, colleagues, and members of the public. I tried to be pretty good about that, but after being Speaker, you know, with that title comes, you know, a lot. And, there were people who, you know, 10 years later remember one small conversation that they had with me. And it’s you know, I consider myself somewhat of a teddy bear, so when people say they were afraid of me, it’s like, well, it’s the title. But when you’re in the trenches and you only have 120 days, you know you’re go, go, go, go, go! And I think it’s important to remember not to take yourself too seriously. Take a deep breath and remember that you know, to treat people well, and I think that’s more long lasting than anything.

Craig Volden (00:08:40):
That’s fantastic. I do want to follow up on the mentorship idea. Any particular mentor who’s coming to mind.

Jason Frierson (00:08:48):
Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Well, I was recruited. I lobbied for two sessions for Clark County and for the public defender’s office. And then Speaker Barbara Buckley, who was my role model, called me out at a gala in front of about 500 people and asked me when I was running for office. I wasn’t. I was single with no children, and I just said, you know, I need no other cloud to part than the Speaker calling me out to run. And so I moved early to get established, and she by far — I mean I had a track record. I would call her on Sine Die every session just to get some encouragement. It wasn’t necessarily about a bill or anything like that, but you know there were people like her and another former Speaker, Richard Perkins, who is a colleague now and also a lobbyist now, who would, you know — I had those folks in my life who would take off their lobbying hat and put on their mentor hat, put on their former Speaker hat, and we could talk about process. And so, you know, I tried to offer that this session. Unfortunately — well, fortunately for me — but for the last few years as U.S. Attorney I wasn’t able to really engage politically. But I think there’s value in mentors who’ve been there before being able to have those frank conversations, and I was really fortunate to have that.

Craig Volden (00:10:15):
That’s fantastic.

Alan Wiseman (00:10:17):
So thinking about when you were initially elected, you know, for those of us that have dived into the weeds a little bit on your legislative agenda, I think it’s fair to say that one way to characterize the legislation that you put forward during your earliest sessions was that a lot of those bills seemed, on their face, designed to protect or provide support for Nevada’s most vulnerable people. And given that’s the case, I’d be curious to hear from you — what are some examples of the problems that you really saw on the ground and in society in Nevada, and that you were trying to come up with or devise legislative solutions to engage with?

Jason Frierson (00:10:53):
Sure. Well, first of all, my mentor — again, my predecessor — who recruited me to run, I moved and ran in her district, and we happened to have eight senior mobile home parks full of seniors on fixed income. And so I was immediately thrust into an environment where I needed to look out for vulnerable folks. And so that was really fundamentally my theme for me, whether it was representing those senior mobile home parks or as a public defender, making sure that, you know, I think that the outcome was fair for both a victim and the accused. I saw a lot of things that I thought could be tweaked with minor adjustments that could really make an impact. I’ll never forget — it was years later I had a kid as a client on his 18th birthday pick up a pretty serious case, and it broke my heart because, you know, I had no way to really do anything other than tell him, “Look, you know you did a bad thing, and you’re going to have to be punished for it. There’s consequences.” Well, over 10 years later, out of the blue, this grown man now called me and just said, “You might not remember me, but…” and as soon as he said his name I stopped him — and this is over 10 years later — and I said, “I remember everything about that case.” It was one of the few regrets I ever had in the outcome, and he was asking for help, you know, resolving it ultimately. But those were the things that I think really resonated with me — actually helping people. You know, to this day we did voting rights restoration. I didn’t fully realize at the time that in Nevada, in order to be eligible to run for office, you have to be eligible to vote. Well, when we did voting rights restoration, that immediately made some folks eligible to run for office, and we have the first ex-felon who reentered into society in our community run and serve in the Assembly. And so I didn’t — that wasn’t my purpose, but that was one of the, you know, side benefits of expanding access for people who were vulnerable or didn’t have a privileged background to be able to have a meaningful existence, and really contribute to the State and the community.

Craig Volden (00:13:00):
Yeah, we’re interested in those sorts of impacts that you’re able to have simultaneously — and what you’re describing is, you know, in some cases, you may be the first politician somebody meets in person. So that back and forth with a constituency… You know, to an extent, lawmakers always are having two jobs — the lawmaking job and the running for election or running for reelection job. And, you know, I’m wondering what your perspective on that was. From our perspective at the Center, we see that you were an effective lawmaker. But then, in a really close election in 2014, you lost by, what, 40 votes or something like that.

Jason Frierson (00:13:43):
Yes.

Craig Volden (00:13:44):
And so, you know, either parts of your district weren’t recognizing how effective you were, or just viewing the job differently. I’m wondering, in hindsight or currently, how do you think about those different jobs of lawmaking and campaigning, and what voters are aware of in the work you’re doing for them?

Jason Frierson (00:14:06):
Sure, and you know 2014 was an unusually low turnout year in Nevada, and I think across the country. I wasn’t the only one to lose. I think we lost 10 seats that cycle out of, I think, 27 — we lost 10 seats. So, you know, I didn’t… And honestly, I was ready. You know, when I first ran I didn’t have a family, and by 2014 I had kids. I got home in the middle of the night that night, having lost, and my son, who was about three years old, had a nightmare and came running out of his bedroom at like, you know, three in the morning. And I thought, there’s no better sign that I need to sit down and spend some time at home than that. So it was fine. I just knew I wasn’t done, and so, you know, we regrouped to come back. But I do think the job as a campaigner is different than being a lawmaker — but they are not detached. I think, you know, as a campaigner you obviously want to win, and that’s your focus — you’re trying to raise money, and you’re trying to do outreach, and you’re trying to win. And as a policymaker, you’re trying to advance legislation. But when you detach the two, I believe it leaves the door open to forget your purpose and to lose a step when it comes to accountability. I think you have to remember, as a candidate, that you have constituents that you’re making promises to and committing to. And if you go too far and make commitments that are not really what the community needs or wants, then you’re going to run the risk of losing. So you have to remember, as a policymaker, that you have to be accountable as well. But I will say this — they’re kind of connected. When I lost in 2014, I took my universe of constituents that I would normally send material to, and I sent them a one-page letter — all of them — and it just said it was an honor to serve. I don’t know what’s next for me, but I’m still going to be in your community, I’m still going to be around, and then we’ll see. I got a better response from that than anything I ever sent out. I wasn’t asking for anything, I wasn’t advocating for anything; I just was being graceful in defeat. And you know, I lost, and I said, “It was an honor. I may be back, I may not. I don’t know. But let’s stay in touch.” And I think that connection of the campaigner to the policymaker is what resonates when you’re in a one-on-one situation at doors with voters.

Alan Wiseman (00:16:35):
Yeah, I really appreciate you recounting the response to that constituency note. That’s interesting to me, how much that resonated with your constituents. Well, let’s fast forward ahead a couple of years — and by a couple I really mean two — and you get reelected to the Legislature. And when you return to the Assembly, you are soon thereafter selected as Speaker. So I think Craig and I and our viewers would be interested to hear your perspectives on to what degree you felt drawn to that leadership position, and what you hoped to accomplish in that role. You’ve already alluded to the ways in which one of your most important mentors was a former Speaker. Were you viewing her as a role model to emulate? And essentially, what were you hoping to accomplish stepping out of the rank-and-file legislator role into a leadership role?

Jason Frierson (00:17:21):
Yeah, you know, I never set out to be Speaker. I enjoyed policy. I enjoyed helping people. I enjoyed advocacy, but I’m also a former Division One football player who’s fiercely competitive, and I did not like losing. I was perfectly complete with my life if I were done, but I felt like I still had more to offer in an unusual election cycle. And so I was really, really driven. I don’t think that the person who beat me in that next election did a particularly good job, and even Republican colleagues of mine I had a strong relationship with were encouraging me as well. So my goal was just to come back and to continue to help advance policies I didn’t think I was done with. I did want to help recruit for those seats that we lost, and I did not tell any of them, “Hey, we’re coming back. I want to help you win so that you can make me Speaker.” I just said, “Hey, we’ll deal with that when we get across the finish line.” For every one of those ten folks I recruited, I said, “My only expectation is that you work as hard as you can to win. The rest of it we’ll deal with.” And so I did feel like I had skills that might lend themselves to leadership. Having lobbied, having watched my mentors, and having several of our more seasoned legislators lose that same cycle, I felt like I had a lot to offer, and I was confident that if I worked really, really hard, that would make my case. And if I wasn’t Speaker, I was going to be just as committed to coming back and having an impact — but it just happened to work out that way.

Craig Volden (00:19:06):
So when you’re Speaker, right, as legislative leaders in whatever legislature we’re looking at, some of the job is just helping organize and thinking about what the priorities are. You have so few days there to decide, “These are the issues we’re going to deal with; this is what we’re going to confront.” Can you tell me a little bit more about how you come up with those priorities, what you have to kind of leave on the table — even though you wanted to act in these areas — and how those decisions are made?

Jason Frierson (00:19:36):
Well, in that particular cycle, I reached out for some help from folks that I knew were engaged and involved and had experience, and we did some polling to ask voters what they care about — what are the issues that are important to them? And my agenda moving forward ceased being my own, and it was really more what that polling reflected voters were interested in. And so, we did polling and established pillars of issues, and then we encouraged policymakers to introduce legislation that fell under some of those pillars. And sometimes they did; if they didn’t, that was fine. It didn’t mean that the measure wasn’t going to advance, but it wasn’t going to be highlighted necessarily. But, you know, we tried to come up with clarity and a blueprint of what we stood for, and then we could articulate that, and actually talk about the bills that advanced those purposes. Nevadans feel pretty strongly about public lands and about individual rights; it’s somewhat of a libertarian-spirited state. Women’s gender equality resonates very, very well in Nevada. Public education is well known to be behind the ball here, and it’s something that everybody cares about. And so I put some of my personal criminal justice issues that I was interested in aside and made sure that the agenda was focused on the issues that voters said they actually cared about, and I think that gave us clarity moving forward, buy-in from colleagues to follow that lead, and the light at the end of the tunnel that was going to send them to a good place.

Craig Volden (00:21:21):
Yeah, I’m fascinated by the nature of that polling, right? Because it sounds like, you know, we’ve seen polls before — like, what are the most important issues, or what are the most important problems. And sometimes, we see, you know, should we do X, or should we do Y? It feels like you had a little bit of both. You know, what are we to focus on? But also, with what goals is it? Problem-focused? Solution-focused? How? How do you see that?

Jason Frierson (00:21:43):
Yeah, it was absolutely — well, it was a little bit of both. You’re right. It was a little bit of both, I think, and it was not only problems and solutions for those problems, but it was also messaging and tone. I think we found out that voters were really turned off by negative campaigning, and we really tried to articulate our positions without attacking the minority caucus or the executive if they weren’t in our party. And so, you know, I think it was important that we were methodical in laying that out. My goal was to establish some roots for the long term and establish a culture that really focused on policy, not political talking points. And so we wanted to be able to back up our positions with data. And so it was a little bit of, again, identifying problems, identifying solutions, but also identifying verbiage and how to talk about it in a way that resonated with voters.

Alan Wiseman (00:22:50):
This is all fascinating to me, and shifting gears slightly, I’d really like to get your perspectives on some questions related to the institutional structure of Nevada, and how well you think it functions. And, you know, as a bit of motivation to this point, for those of us that think about state legislatures or state politics more broadly considered, it seems that some state legislatures are structured and governed in ways that, frankly, work a bit smoother than others — whether it’s a function of the institutional rules in place, how many days the chamber is in session, how committees work, the scope of supermajority or majority protection rules, the amount of legislative staff, and the like. And I’d be curious, especially given the fact that you spent three terms in such a prominent leadership role, as well as being rank and file, so to speak — from your vantage point, do you feel that the Nevada Legislature is well structured to address the state’s policy challenges? Or do you feel there are some reforms that you’d be in favor of advocating for to help function, or help to ensure their function, even better than it already does?

Jason Frierson (00:23:57):
Sure. I’ll say this first: I think that the Nevada Legislature does an extraordinary job with the structure that they have to be able to run a state that only meets every other year for 120 days, with a dynamic economy involving tourism and gaming and mining, all of which fluctuate. I think that Nevada has done an extraordinary job. That being said, I think it is entirely inadequate when we have the real estate fluctuations throughout the country. Well, you know, the game changed seven times before we were able to come back as a legislature to try to deal with it — and especially without a state income tax, and that’s embedded within the Nevada Constitution, so it’s not likely to change. I think we have to stay flexible and agile in how we deal with these problems, and meeting once every other year for 120 days, I think, is what I frequently say — operating as a territory aspiring to become a state. I think we need to grow up a little bit as a state and recognize the dynamic needs that we have. You know, I know many states have adjusted to meet annually, even if it’s a shorter session during the off year to deal with just fiscal matters. I think that is an interesting idea. We did polling once, and people thought we made $200,000 a year as state legislators — and we make $9,000 once every other year. I spent a lot of sessions going into significant debt for 120 days with the $9,000 that I made, still having a mortgage at home. So I think meeting maybe every other year in a shorter, more focused session would be wise. I think compensating our policymakers in a more reasonable way so that you don’t have a legislature — especially a citizen legislature — where the only people who can serve are wealthy folks and inexperienced folks with nothing to lose. You want some average folks in there. So I think compensating more realistically, even if there’s an independent commission that decides it — and then I think, in recent years, out of an abundance of caution, we’ve passed legislation and policies that really restrict interaction between the lobby corps and stakeholders and policymakers, to the extent that you can’t even buy a cup of coffee. And I think it has really created an environment where there’s not a lot of organic interaction and meaningful conversations, and that, I think, has hurt the legislature. Those are just a few things I think we could do to function a little more effectively moving forward.

Craig Volden (00:26:43):
And do you think there are prospects for reform along those lines? Is there momentum to do something?

Jason Frierson (00:26:50):
No. No. The reality is, I think the average citizen thinks that we should meet less — and the less that policymakers can do, the better. I think, you know, there’s concern about money being a motivating factor for why people do this, although it’s meager — it’s probably functionally less than minimum wage. I think meeting more frequently is perceived as being able to muck things up more frequently. I think a case can be made for some of those changes. You know, I advocated for years for open primaries, because I think voters are increasingly nonpartisan and leaving parties, and I never stopped speaking with a majority of my constituency. So I think those are ways to moderate the conversations when you’re not only speaking to your base, but I think those things would have to be combined in a collective effort to increase the quality of representation.

Craig Volden (00:28:55):
I want to pick up on that last one about the primaries in particular — how that plays out then in the legislature itself. So, how would you describe the nature of relations between Democrats and Republicans in the legislature, and has it changed over time?

Jason Frierson (00:28:13):
Well, it has absolutely changed over time. When I became Speaker, I was very well aware of concerns — because I was a public defender — that maybe I was going to be far left of center on some issues. And I went out of my way to remind folks that I see my role as leader as leading the entire Assembly. So I was committed not only to bipartisan discussions, but to making sure that minority members of the Assembly had a meaningful experience as well — so they could go home and have something that they could say was worth their sacrifice in being away from home. If it wasn’t something we were fundamentally going to be against, but it was something we could live with, I wasn’t going to stop it just because it was a member of the minority party that advanced it. I met with minority caucus leaders every week during every session the entire time that I was Speaker. I thought it was important that we had those conversations — similarly with the Executive. I served under both a Republican and a Democratic governor, and met with both, and had very fruitful relationships with both. I think when you pivot and you go from campaigning to governing, it’s important that you think about getting things done — and it’s too big of a sacrifice to have somebody leave their families and their jobs for 120 days only to get nothing done because of their party. Now, there are people who get nothing done because of their behavior, or because the spirit of what they’re trying to do is not consistent, I think, with our state — but I found it important to try to make it worthwhile. And I think, in exchange, we had some fringe members that were much more cooperative and appreciative because I let them do their thing, and I would tell them in committees, “I will let you — as long as you’re respectful and abide by the same rules — I will let you be you.” And that ended up paying dividends both in committees as well as on the floor running the floor. But I don’t think it’s the same. I think it’s changing, not only in Nevada but across the country. Politics has gotten significantly more partisan and idealistic, and I think it’s going to take some really brave and committed folks in both party structures to bring it back to governing as opposed to talking points.

Alan Wiseman (00:30:36):
Well, Mr. Speaker, thinking about the practicalities of governing in a legislature that meets 120 days every other year — that’s a pretty up-tempo environment. To that end, I would expect that, to be as effective as you’ve been, it seems crucial that while you’re cultivating the bills you want to advance, you’re already thinking about how your proposals are going to be perceived and advanced beyond your home chamber. Along those lines, I’d be curious to hear — either as rank and file, but especially as Speaker — how did you work with leaders in the Senate, or perhaps with the Governor’s office, to maximize support for your proposals at the time you were trying to advance them in the Assembly?

Jason Frierson (00:31:17):
Well, for me, I think having adequate — or exceptional — staff really, really helped me in working with the minority party and the other House. You know, I was elected for 10 years, and it was not uncommon, in other states and other organizations that talked about legislative leadership, to hear that the minority caucus is your adversary, but the other House is your enemy. That played out to be realistic — I think there was some competition about who got credit for different measures. Fortunately — or unfortunately — my first year as Speaker, the Senate Majority Leader at the start of session was prosecuted and had to resign, and so the person who stepped up to be Majority Leader was a good friend. I’d known him for a long time; we worked as DAs together, so that first session it wasn’t quite as competitive, because I think I was objectively perceived as more senior and more seasoned. But we ended up developing MOUs that set out rules of engagement between the Houses. We really tried to avoid that type of competition. It wasn’t easy — our current Attorney General was Majority Leader while I was Speaker, and we went to law school together and are members of the same fraternity, and we frequently fought. I think you have to think about — if anybody who serves is just doing it to be reelected, they’re doing their state a disservice. You have to have some balance, and that balance has to include the other House and the minority caucuses to have a smooth transition — especially when you only have 120 days to get things done. It’s important that you agree where you can agree, and identify where you can’t agree. We are increasingly in a worse place when compromise and common ground are curse words — but I think folks have to continue to be committed to finding that common ground when they can.

Craig Volden (00:33:47):
Yeah, I’d love to hear a concrete example or two where you felt like it all worked — we had some differences, but we worked through it House–Senate, or Assembly–Senate got the Governor on board, or the Governor led the effort. How does that all work?

Jason Frierson (00:34:03):
Sure. I will say — and some of my colleagues will probably not be thrilled — but having a supermajority is not something I wish on anybody. It really increases pressure to be partisan and not to work across the aisle. I felt like when I served, in particular with a Republican governor as a Democratic Speaker, it really required a lot of work and communication to figure out and navigate where you’re going and how you’re going to get there. And even then, there were times where there was a commitment and something happened, and the governor was mad, or one of my members went the other way. But, for the most part, that first cycle as Speaker in particular, I was able to navigate it and explain to members, “Look, there are some things that we’re going to move and there are some things that we’re not — and I’m not afraid. It’s just that five of your bills are going to die if I send this to the governor, and so trust me, I’m looking out for you for a better outcome.” I also think it created a lot of goodwill that minimized a lot of partisan attacks afterwards, because they would rather have me as a leader who was considerate of them and their experience than somebody else who might not be.

Craig Volden (00:35:26):
Anything where you thought, “I didn’t think this would work, but we gave it a go, and we were able to achieve it together even across those circumstances?”

Jason Frierson (00:35:36):
Well, there were some things we were able to do — again, Nevada being somewhat of a libertarian state, I think a lot of the criminal justice measures that we moved when I was Speaker, in particular, were common-sense things that included input from law enforcement as well as the ACLU, as well as progressives, as well as prosecutors. One thing I did as Speaker was meet with every single constituency group — sometimes to the detriment of my sleep — but I met with progressives, conservatives, the chamber community, and unions, and everybody once a week during session to try to streamline communication as much as possible. Some of those things were, with respect to voting rights and voting access and election reform, I really tried to find common ground. You can’t play chicken against yourself — the minority leader at one point listed ten reasons why she couldn’t support some election-related legislation that I had introduced. So I actually addressed all ten and said, “Okay, here’s an amended version — now what?” And then she was like, “Oh, well, I still can’t vote for it, but thank you.” I gave it my best shot at trying to find some compromise. So there were times like that where they just weren’t able to budge based on their own caucus and constituencies, and there were other times where we could find some common ground — again, dealing with those vulnerable populations that we talked about earlier. I think those were things that could resonate across party lines a lot of times, and they got us across the finish line.

Alan Wiseman (00:37:29):
Great. I think you know, broadly speaking, it seems so many of the issues that you could confront as a lawmaker in Nevada are also being raised and addressed in neighboring states, and actually, in some cases in states well across the country. I’d be curious, especially given once again you’re in session for such a finite period of time, and it’s such an up-tempo agenda — how do you learn, or how did you learn, from these other experiences in states? And to what degree did that inform your policymaking or your legislative strategy? And likewise, how do you share the knowledge about your experiences in Nevada with other states and other state legislators?

Jason Frierson (00:38:06):
Well, you know, as a policymaker I never wanted to reinvent the wheel, even when I started. And so I think, in a state that’s as small as Nevada — about three million — and meets once every other year, it’s really difficult for us, as a state this small, to really get out front on some issues that might be much more complicated in a bigger state like California, New York. So, you know, we would check what other states were doing. If I had an idea or an issue, I would explore whether any other states have tried it. There are wonderful resources out there, like the National Conference for State Legislatures and Council of State Governments, and others that really serve as a resource when it comes to looking at other policies in other states. But those organizations also allowed, once I became Speaker, a lot of interaction with other states. I remember, I think Democrats in Virginia at the time were about to become the majority, and invited me to come speak with them about how we took the majority — which we were already there as a kind of return. But I just told them, you know, the legislature is one of the few institutions where no one can do it alone. It’s an amoeba — you operate together collectively, or you don’t. And they had never been in the majority, and I just told them, the fastest thing you can do to lose the majority is to not come together in a united front to govern. And so there are opportunities to engage with other legislatures, to talk about leadership, in addition to those organizations that facilitated a lot of training. But I think it’s important that you avoid reinventing the wheel, collaborate with other states. You know, there were some interesting policy discussions between states. We got attacked one year for our gun policies, and a policymaker in California insinuated Nevada was to blame for all their gun woes because it’s so easy to get guns. In a legislative organization retreat, I just said, “Well, there are probably a lot of Californians in Nevada prisons, too. I don’t know that this is a productive conversation in this tone — let’s talk about solving problems as opposed to pointing fingers.” And so, you know, those opportunities to engage with leaders in other states, I think, allow you to not have to reinvent the wheel — and to avoid some of the mistakes that maybe they’ve made — and use that, avoid it, and try to do a better job. You know, that’s all you can do.

Craig Volden (00:40:52):
Yeah, I appreciate that — you know, bringing in their expertise and your expertise and coming together to try to solve problems. I appreciate that. The overall sense that we have at the Center for Effective Lawmaking is that folks like you have been able to navigate the lawmaking process particularly well, as a highly effective lawmaker. And we’ve talked about some parts of that — how you can bring together a coalition, how you rely on the public and grassroots support. But just thinking broadly about anything that we haven’t covered yet, what would you say are the keys to effective lawmaking?

Jason Frierson (00:41:40):
I was thinking about a conversation I had with my former chief of staff when we prepared for, I think, a press conference, and they ended up asking a bunch of questions that we had not talked about. And I… you know, I handled it, and it was fine, but afterwards my chief of staff said, “How do you do that?” And I said, “You know, there’s practice, there’s sincerity, and there’s coffee — that’s all I got.” And so, you know, I think it’s important as a policymaker to be genuine and sincere. I think it’s also very important to prioritize accessibility — to respond. You know, I actually happen to have, on my desk, a letter that I had dug out from a constituent back in, I want to say, 2017 maybe, that was thanking me for something that I supported that my caucus didn’t necessarily support at the time — but I thought it made sense, and it helped kids. And so, you know, being accessible and responsive, I think, being open-minded — there are people who’ve been here before you that have some ideas and experiences. And even if you thought your idea was the greatest thing in the world, being open to other ways and other solutions, I think, is as important. Inclusion — including people, I think, both as a policymaker (including stakeholders early on so you can have a better product), but as a leader, including your caucus. And I think you get better buy-in as a leader if you include your caucus. And, you know, they win sometimes and sometimes they don’t, but if they know they were heard out, then I think they can buy into having been considered, and I think, when you need them, that goes a long way. And I’m a little biased, but, you know… coffee helps out a lot.

Craig Volden (00:43:36):
Fantastic — the nature of the inclusion and the discussions that you’re having, and so on, is particularly admirable, given how limited you are in the time that you have together. How do you think about that sort of trade-off — like, we want to get things done, but we want to also consult with everybody? Coffee goes a long way, but maybe not all the way there.

Craig Volden (00:44:01):
…Coffee goes a long way, but maybe not all the way there. How do you think about that sort of trade-off — like, we want to get things done, but we want to also consult with everybody?

Jason Frierson (00:44:08):
Well, you know, look — I think honesty, being able to deliver the bad news — people will respect you for disappointment if they felt included. They can say, “Well, you know, Speaker Frierson made this call, but at least he heard me out first,” as opposed to, “He didn’t care what I thought.” You can’t do everything. There were tough things that, as leaders — and look, I made mistakes; everybody makes mistakes — there were times where I had members do some things that I had to react to, because as much as I might have agreed with whatever outcome they were trying to obtain, the way they did it…I could not let that be a lesson that people learned about how to get things done. And so there were times where I had to kill pieces of legislation or pass pieces of legislation because I was put in a position where, as a leader, I would be a detriment to the institution if I let that slide as an acceptable method. And, you know, you’ve got to give people the bad news and the good news. I’ve always believed that you need to hold your own accountable. It wasn’t a pleasant experience, but I can recall — and I don’t know that I’ve heard of anybody else having to do this — I can recall asking for the resignation of three of my own members because of misconduct or other things where I was like, “I can’t hold them accountable if I don’t hold you guys accountable.” And this is not acceptable. It went so far as to having to ask for three members’ resignations: two of which resigned, one of which ultimately the legislature had to eject because behavior was so unacceptable. But again, when you don’t get everything done — and I failed — I didn’t get open primaries done when I tried it. But you do the best you can and move forward with the common ground that you can. I’m proud. They can undo everything that I did as a legislator — that’s the way the process works. I’m fine with that. I think it’s smarter that I got some things done without my fingerprints on them, so if somebody was trying to undo my legacy, it would be pretty hard. You do the best you can do, and as long as you carry yourself in a commendable way, you’ve done the institution a service.

Alan Wiseman (00:46:32):
Well, thanks for that. We’ve touched on a lot of topics and themes here, some of which deal directly with legislative politics and some transcend legislative politics in some ways, and are probably generalizable to a lot of different positions or frames of life. To that end, because the Center for Effective Lawmaking is, in fact, located at Vanderbilt University and the University of Virginia — both of which are academic institutions — we wonder if you have any further or particular advice or insights or last thoughts you’d like to share with college students today.

Jason Frierson (00:46:57):
Well, sure. My experience as a policymaker was tremendous. It was very fulfilling. My dad — I’ll never forget — my parents weren’t in politics, really, and when my dad found out I was interested, he was concerned from an ethical standpoint, from a moral standpoint. I promised him, if I am ever pressed or feel compelled to act inconsistent with my own character, I’m happy to walk away. I think you can’t forget who you are when it comes to engaging as a lawmaker. I talk to younger folks and aspiring policymakers and say, “Look, conduct yourself as if you’re being watched.” They have challenges now — I don’t feel like I’m that old — but social media was not as prevalent when I started. Now, they have cameras everywhere, watching everywhere. Carry yourself as if you know you’re being watched — because you probably are — then stay true to yourself. At the end of the day, ultimately, for newer policymakers who maybe haven’t seen great examples of leadership, I think common ground can’t be a curse word. Moderation can’t be a sin. If you are in it for the right reasons — sometimes baby steps. Some of the things we accomplished took us six, eight years to get done, but it was a better product because we stayed the course and found a way to get it done over time. In today’s environment, where it’s all or nothing — I remember as a teenager feeling like my parents were voting for the lesser of two evils. Today, people aren’t happy with that; they want perfection or nothing. We’ve got to find some common ground there, where folks aren’t looking for perfection but still are holding their folks accountable, while remaining engaged no matter what. I would encourage folks to engage in public service or lawmaking if they have the bug — but even if they don’t, in how they advocate and how they hold folks accountable. These are principles that matter regardless of which side of policymaking you’re on: being sincere and genuine, staying true to yourself, being responsive and accountable. All of those things matter, and you should hold others — and yourself — to them.

Craig Volden (00:49:44):
Thanks so much for sharing those insights. We really appreciate the opportunity to talk with you today, and we want to thank you for your public service. As we wrap up, however, we always feel like we might have missed something — was there anything that you wished we would have asked, or anything else you want to tell us about effective lawmaking in Nevada before we say goodbye?

Jason Frierson (00:50:08):
I don’t know. I think the most difficult thing I found early in my career was letting down your friends — telling your friend, “I’m sorry, we can’t pass that bill,” or “You can’t be on that committee,” or “You can’t be chair of that committee.” Those are really difficult conversations to have. But there’s a cost to leadership, and some of it is not always being popular, or liked, or agreed with — and you get blamed for things you didn’t do. You have to keep a tight lip and just accept it as part of leadership. It’s still worthwhile. Even talking with my lobbyist colleagues, I remind them: just like you’re human and have a client, these policymakers are human as well — and they have constituents calling and emailing them. Let’s not take ourselves too seriously. Remember, we’re in this community together, and we have to find a way to make it better. Usually, we agree on where we’re trying to get, just not how to get there — and as long as we remember that, we can treat each other with dignity and respect, and come out committed to keep at it, to try to make our communities better.

Craig Volden (00:51:31):
Yeah, it seems like those tough conversations and tough decisions are the ones that are the most important — where leaders are shining through. And we really appreciate your leadership along those lines.

Jason Frierson (00:51:41):
Well, thank you very much.

Alan Wiseman (00:51:44):
Well, thanks so much for joining us. We really appreciate your time, and I’m sure that our viewers and students alike will really benefit from this conversation.

Jason Frierson (00:51:52):
I appreciate the opportunity anytime. I have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for the work that you all do, and I have gleaned a great deal from even watching you guys. It’s good to see you again, and I appreciate the time.

Alan Wiseman (00:52:07):
You also — thanks so much.

Jason Frierson (00:52:09):
Alright, take care!