“When I first ran for Congress two years ago, after serving in the state legislature for eight years,” said U.S. Rep. Emilia Sykes, “I did so with one very simple mission: to reconnect our community to Congress and make the government work for our people.”
Sykes spoke at an Akron Press Club event Thursday, a few weeks after her opponent, Republican Kevin Coughlin. The two are running for the seat in “one of the most competitive districts in the entire country,” she said.
As the representative for District 13, which includes all of Summit County and parts of Stark and Portage counties, Sykes’ constituents have a variety of concerns they’d like the freshman member of Congress to address. Sykes said she and her colleagues are often asked, “What are your top three priorities?”
“My answer is always the same,” she said. “Working for my constituents, working for my constituents, working for my constituents.”
Sykes answered submitted questions posed by Andrew Meyer, deputy editor for news at Ideastream Public Media and a press club member.
The conversation has been edited lightly for clarity.
What would you highlight from your first two years that really reflects attention to all of District 13, not just Akron?
Since this district was formed, it was pretty clear to me that Stark County was a little uneasy with their county being split. They had enjoyed one member of Congress for some time, and certainly enjoyed the representation of Congressman [Ralph] Regula, who was very, very well liked.
And so it took some time and some trust building to ensure that they felt comfortable with me as their representative, and that just meant showing up all the time.
And so, for example, we’ll talk about our community project funding process and what that means for this community. So, as we were doing the community project funding, which is often turned into earmarks, this is a little bit different process, it has more guardrails around it.
When we looked at the earmarks before I was elected in Congress, the entire district received three, maybe four projects, and when we were able to submit our first round, we submitted 15 of them, and we were awarded 13. That’s a significant difference.
That meant we, in Stark County, received water infrastructure in Canal Fulton, more water infrastructure in North Canton, investment around the East Tuscarawas streets project that they have been trying to revitalize this community downtown for many years.
We collaborated with our Stark and Summit County Sheriff’s departments to get law enforcement cruisers…
🗳️For more on this year’s November election, visit our Election Signals 2024 page.
We recently were in Stark County to acknowledge, with the EPA, nearly $40 million or so around a water project with the Canton Water Department, we have another set of community project funding that we have submitted funding to, and that’s just the Stark County part.
What’s your position on Issue 1? And how might the language that Secretary of State Frank LaRose added to the ballot impact the amendment?
First, I am supporting Issue 1… As I talk to people across this district and across the state, and really across the country, they are asking and begging for something different. It is one of the reasons why I am supporting the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, because they will tackle the issue of gerrymandering, at least at the federal level, if we can’t manage to do it here in the state.
But I will say about the process — I watched the process very closely, as we were redrawing the lines last year, and one of the things that was missing was actors on both sides of the aisle willing to put the will of the voters first.
It was more than frustrating having conversations with folks from the other side of the aisle who just decided that they were going to forgo what the language actually said in the constitution. And it comes as no surprise that people are fed up. They are fed up with politicians picking their voters and pre-deciding, pre-determining who is going to win in each election.
And because we have this very pro-democracy ballot initiative process in the state, the citizens said, we are going to do this on our own. And they got themselves together, they organized, they got the signatures and on the ballot. And they really should not have had to do that, because it should have been done right the first time. But they did. And so now they’re going to take the power out of the hands of politicians and put it into the hands of citizens to draw these lines.
I saw recently an editorial in Akron.com and someone cited specifically the inaccurate language from the ballot board. Which, I will say the purpose of the ballot board voting on the language that they did was to do exactly what it did. It was to confuse people and to suggest that Issue 1 was to gerrymander and not to un-gerrymander the current districts that we have now.
And so it’s quite unfortunate that people go to such great lengths to maintain their power at all costs. As I said before, I am in this position as long as you will have me. I hope that you will keep me, but if you decide not to, that is your decision. This is your seat. It is not mine. And so if everyone had that attitude, I think we would have better outcomes in our government.
During your time in the Ohio House, you voted to elect Larry Householder as speaker. Why was that the right decision at the time?
So the Statehouse is a very interesting place, and if you had spent any time there in a Republican supermajority, you would have seen a lot of what you see in Congress now: a lot of infighting. The Republican majority at the time, could not decide what they wanted to do, or even who they wanted to lead them. And our former speaker had stepped down because he was under FBI investigation. His hand-picked successor was also being questioned by the FBI. And then a former speaker, who had also previously been questioned by the FBI, also wanted to run for speaker. And so those were the options that they gave the people of the state of Ohio.
And after several months of seeing the majority not be able to decide who they wanted to be the speaker, it became clear that Democrats were going to have to participate in this vote, which was completely unusual and not something that had been done before. And as we talked with both of the candidates for speaker, there was one who was willing to have a discussion with us, and there was one who was not.
There was one who was really willing to protect the rights of labor unions to collectively bargain, and there was one who was not. There was one who was willing to allow members of our caucus to actually offer amendments and be able to advocate for their constituents, and there was one who was not. There was one who was willing to allow video cameras into the halls of the Statehouse and into community rooms, so you could actually see from the comfort of your own home or your office what was happening in the state legislature. And there was one who was not.
And after several months of hand wringing and back and forth and really begging and pleading at the other side of the aisle to ‘Please get your act together and pick someone so we don’t have to do this’ we have to make a decision. We were completely unable to vote on anything. We could not move anything forward. There was just so much fighting, and someone had to be an adult in the room.
And many members of my caucus, including myself, voted for a speaker candidate who, now we know, unfortunately, sold the Statehouse out. Because of that, we very quickly moved to have him expelled from the Statehouse, which he ultimately was.
He has had to speak for and answer for his crimes. And even though at many of our best attempts, at least five or six when I was in the legislature, to repeal the legislation of House Bill 6, the majority still refused, and still to this day refuses to undo the bailout, $60 million bailout that caused the speaker, the former speaker of the house, to be imprisoned.”
If elected, would you commit to protecting the southern border and supporting the reinstatement of the ‘remain in Mexico’ immigration policy, which requires migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. to wait in Mexico until their immigration court date?
So immigration policy is one that we hear an awful lot about. And one thing that I won’t do in answering this question is minimize it, minimize it to just one policy or just one person or one administration.
The failure to address our immigration system is not a Biden administration issue, it’s not a Trump administration issue, not an Obama administration issue, it’s not a Clinton administration issue, not a Bush administration issue. All of these administrations have failed to do what is necessary to ensure that we have comprehensive immigration policy.
And there is no way to secure our southern border, to ensure that we have an immigration system that is predictable and clear without doing it comprehensively…
We have an opportunity to start the process to actually address our immigration issue. This year, there was a bipartisan Senate agreement that some of the most conservative members of the Senate and the most liberal members of the Senate came together to fix this issue. We all recognize there is an issue to be fixed.
And unfortunately, our former president wanted an issue to run on, and so he called up the Senate minority leader and said, ‘kill this bill.’ And the Senate minority leader killed the bill. And so now, instead of us implementing a more comprehensive immigration bill, we are now being inundated with a barrage of television ads about how this group of people did not fix the immigration problem.
When I came to Congress, I made it very clear, this is a 50-50 district, as 50-50 as it comes, and I’m going to work with both sides of the aisle and any opportunities that we have to do so, I’m going to take it. And there is no way, despite what anyone will tell you, that we can fix the immigration system with just one party.
This is the part in which Congress could do so much better. In rolling up our sleeves and getting the work done and deciding to fix an issue and not allowing it to be a political issue that will just plague us for years and decades to come. There are lives attached to the fact that this work is not being done. And so I am encouraging and always implore my colleagues to let’s do something.
What are some concrete things that you would do in the next term to address cost-of-living issues?
When I was in the legislature, I had really one of the best moments with someone who came in from a community action agency who said to me, ‘In our community, when people are struggling, they don’t need more programs. They need more money.’ And I’ve always kept that with me.
We are good at putting programs together, and programs are necessary, but when costs are high, people need more money.
The reason I introduced the Lower Your Taxes Act was to put more money in people’s pockets. The Earned Income Tax Credit, as I said, is one of the best anti-poverty programs this country has ever seen, incentivizing work and getting more people to keep what they have earned in their pockets. The Child Tax Credit, like I said before, was almost a 50% reduction in child poverty in just the six months that it was reinstated in this country.
It was a direct payment to families. That went away. Unfortunately there weren’t enough votes, and you should reinstate that for the benefit of families all across this community. So those are just two concrete ways in which we could put more money in people’s pockets so they could deal with the cost of food, housing, gas, all that good stuff.
The other part of the high cost, one of the leading drivers of the inflation, is housing cost. And housing is, in this community, across the state and across this country, just way too high…
There are multiple tax credits that home builders and multi-family home builders have access for, so that they can reduce the risk and build up these housing communities across the country.
We look at downtowns where there are office buildings where people are not working in them anymore. There are tax credits to incentivize the private sector to build housing units in these downtowns, revitalize some of these communities. I know we certainly could use it in Akron and Canton as well, so that we can provide affordable housing for people and bring people back to downtown.
I also recently introduced a bill, and one that we had been working on and trying to find some bipartisan support for. We haven’t found it yet. But next year, when I’m back in Congress, it would de-incentivize these private equity companies from going into communities and paying cash offers to buy up all of the housing stock communities.
The number-one way in which people can build wealth in this country is through home buying, through home ownership. And if people cannot own a home because they’re being priced out by private equity who can provide cash offers, we are not selling to our Millennials, to our young people who want to build and start communities.
That means we’re losing out on resources for our schools, in our social service agencies, and then we’re just keeping transient communities and people aren’t able to build roots and grow their families here in these communities.
When will we settle voting rights permanently?
So one thing we can do is ensure we pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act and the Freedom to Vote Act. And one thing I know from the Democratic minority leader is that is a top priority for the caucus in ensuring that people have rights to vote and access to the right to vote.
There are far too many people across this country who jump through insurmountable hurdles just to vote, and it just shouldn’t be that way. From gerrymandering and even the high cost of elections and the Citizens United bill, getting all of these things under control can help more people be a part of our democracy and decision making.
So those would be the two things that I would suggest. The Supreme Court, you know, I learned in law school is to never predict what judges will do. But we don’t have to predict too much because we’ve seen what they’ve done.
What have you done and what will you do to project women’s reproductive rights?
Well, first of all, it is a shame that women have to continually ask for our rights to be appreciated and respected. And the fact that the Dobbs decision essentially got rid of 50 years of precedence and made it possible for the government to be involved in some of the most important decision making is truly disgusting. It was a terrible decision. It continues to be a terrible decision, and we are constantly seeing the fallout.
We are seeing women all across this country die, become harmed, lose their reproductive capabilities because of abortion bans across the country, and it is part of the reason why I introduced the EMTALA resolution, because so many women are not being able to access health care when they need it most. EMTALA, as you may know, is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, and it says if you go to the emergency department, and you are in active labor, you have to be treated.
But what we are seeing across this country, we’ve even seen it in Ohio, with the case of Brittany Watts in Warren County, where she went to the emergency department, not one, not two, but three times, in active miscarriage, asking for help, bleeding, hemorrhaging. They sent her home. They just ignored her, and on the third time they didn’t refer her to an OBGYN, they referred her for prosecution, and she was arrested for abuse of a corpse after she miscarried at home, after they did not treat her in the emergency department.
This is not a unique story. Her story is not unique. Women are becoming septic, being told to leave and come back when they’re bleeding so much that you can’t stand or that you’re vomiting [so much] that you can’t even lift your head up. This is not a way to treat half of the citizenry in this country.
And so the Women’s Health Protection Act is one of the pieces of legislation that will reinstate Roe. It would allow us to, allow women to, make the decisions for their families without government deciding what is most important.
I supported the Right to Contraception Act, which is another bill to just give people the right to contraception. Very easy, very simple, but unfortunately, a bill that we’ve not been able to get to the finish line. I’ve supported bills that would support IVF so that families can decide to start a family if they’re having problems and need reproductive technologies to help them.
But we also need 218 people in the House in order to do that. And we don’t have 218 people in the House of Representatives who are willing to stand up for women and protect women’s freedom and allow them to decide when and how they want to start a family.
And so I am very dedicated to going back to Congress and continuing to work with my colleagues in order to support women’s and families’ rights to start a family, how and when they choose to.
What would you say to someone who might look at the fact that you come from a family of politicians in a negative way?
Because I watched my parents in elective politics, I never wanted to be in elective politics. You know, I have joked before that when my mom served on Akron council, she was pregnant with me in that role and so she didn’t expose me to American novels or classical music, it was City Council meetings and board meetings and her arguing with the mayor.
And so, that’s all I know how to do. And even just serving in the community and being a part of this is just all I’ve known how to do. I’ve grown up in this, and it certainly was a blessing to be raised by this community and people who have gotten to know us.
And I understood that this job is so much more than what they think it is. It is not nearly as glamorous as it looks on TV. It is a lot of hard work if you’re doing the job well and you’re doing it appropriately. And I thought ‘I can serve my community in other ways, but it is not going to be as an elected member of anything.’ And so, you know, you want to make God laugh, you tell him your plans. And so God has been laughing at me for about 10 years now, because I have found myself in elected office.
And so I know people have commented about the fact that my family is in politics, and my sister works in the school system, so she is a member who serves well, and this is just what we do as a family.
We serve our community. The family business is service. And so I’m proud to be a part of that legacy, and it really gives me a much more grounded thought into my decision making into why I make the decisions. It is not about what I get out of it, it is what we can get out of it. It is what this community can get out of my position.
And so I look at it as a value add, because there’s a learning curve that I just didn’t have to participate in. I know this community, I’m very fortunate to be able to call a lot of people, some in this room and others, and say, ‘Hey, I need help with something,’ or ‘One of my constituents is struggling. Can you help them find this resource?’
That is something that has only been made possible because of our long-standing relationships in this community, and I use them in service of the constituents who have elected me to serve them. And I will continue to do so as long as you will have me.
