We know Stacey Abrams is serious about changing America because she's not running for president

Unlike some of her fellow Democrats, Abrams has proven she's a realist

After teasing a 'very special announcement', Abrams this week launched an initiative aimed at preventing voter suppression (NBCU Photo Bank via Getty Images)

Stacey Abrams has announced that she will not seek the Democratic party nomination for president in 2020. Following months of speculation, the Georgia Democrat – who narrowly lost out in 2018’s gubernatorial race to Republican Brian Kemp – teased a “special announcement” on social media. And it turned out it wasn’t a presidential one. Instead, Abrams said that she would be lending her platform to Fair Fight 2020, a new initiative that aims to end voter suppression.

As was proven in the 2018 mid-terms, when Abrams lost out to her Trump-backing Republican counterpart, voter suppression works. Brian Kemp was supposed to be in charge of making sure the election he stood in was fair; he ended up facing lawsuits forremoving more than 100,000 people from the electoral register after they didn’t vote in previous elections. His office has failed to approve 53,000 registrations primarily from black Americans.

It was bad enough that Abrams had her election stolen from her, but even worse is the fact that many of the voter suppression methods used by Kemp are technically within the law.

In Florida, Democrat Andrew Gillum lost out to ardent Trump supporter Ron DeSantis by just 0.4 per cent. DeSantis won in an election where nearly 1.5 million former prison inmates were barred from voting under Florida’s state constitution. Those prohibited accounted for 9.2 per cent of Florida’s voting age population and, crucially, 17.9 per cent of the state’s potential black voters.

On the day DeSantis was elected, Florida voted to restore these rights, passing Amendment 4 and ending the blatant suppression of black votes. If this had taken place prior to 2018, Gillum – who lost by just 26,000 votes – would likely be Florida’s first black governor and the state would have its first Democrat governor since 1998.

In Florida, voter suppression had its intended consequence, with knock-on effects that may further hinder minorities and Democratic candidates in the future. As governor, DeSantis promptly picked Laurel M Lee to be his secretary of state. Lee, a Republican, will be in charge of maintaining a fair election in 2020 in a swing state which was won by Trump by just 1.2 per cent in 2016.

It is ludicrous that politically partisan officials, appointed by politicians with clear political agendas, are responsible for ensuring fair elections on a state-by-state basis, rather than an independent federal body.

On a national level, 2016’s presidential election was won by just 80,000 votes across three states. On his “victory tour”, then-president-elect Trump laughed as he thanked black Americans for “not voting”, knowing full well that millions were deliberately barred or disenfranchised via restrictive voter ID laws which he has advocated for since taking office. How different would the result have been if everyone – regardless of race, social class or occupation – had the same access to democracy?

A problem as widespread and consequential as voter suppression undoubtedly requires a two-sided approach from within and outside government. But by partnering with this new initiative, Abrams clearly understands that there is little point in Democrats talking up big plans during elections which they are being prevented from winning. Democrats need to be talking about future mechanisms of governing just as much as the policies they’ll enact via the current electoral framework.

The trouble with elections is they tend to revolve around urgent issues which require immediate attention. This is partly why politicians across the political spectrum have failed to make central election issues out of climate change or infrastructure. But some Democratic candidates are addressing the bigger challenges facing their party’s agenda. Candidates including Elizabeth Warren, Beto O’Rourke and Kirsten Gillibrand have suggested replacing the Electoral College voting system, which has denied the Democrats the White House in two of the last five presidential elections. Bernie Sanders thinks Election Day should be a holiday, enabling more workers to spend time standing in line to vote.

South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg addressed this problem in the starkest terms in CNN’s Democrat debate on 30 June. Democrat candidates debated different plans – from healthcare to gun control and border security – which would either be impossible to pass through both houses, end in filibuster or be overruled by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority.

In what Vox’s Ezra Klein called “the most important answer at the Democratic debate”, Buttigieg said: “[This is] the conversation that we have been having for the last 20 years […] But when I propose the actual structural democratic reforms that might make a difference – end the Electoral College, amend the Constitution if necessary to clear up Citizens United, have DC actually be a state, and depoliticize the Supreme Court with structural reform – people look at me funny, as if this country was incapable of structural reform […] We have to or we will be having the same argument 20 years from now.”

Buttigieg’s strategy of prioritising political reforms over policy wins is unique among 2020’s contenders – perhaps signalling that he knows he is unlikely to win the nomination, so matching his opponents on policy detail is unnecessary. Yet this doesn’t mean that he and Abrams are wrong about the importance of structural reform. Both are young politicians, aged 45 and 37 respectively, with eyes on the future. “This is the difference between somebody who’s thinking about 2024 versus somebody who’s thinking about 2054,” Buttigieg said. “We’re talking about setting the terms of the debate as they will play out for the rest of my life.”

But unlike Buttigieg, by not running for president, Abrams has gauged that the biggest and most important challenges facing American democracy can be better addressed outside elected office. Much more so than a 2020 vanity run, Abrams’s new approach has the potential to change the political game forever. Rather than trim the leaves, she’s going straight to the root of the problem.