- An anti-Trump, pro-choice, moderate Republican, and she just won a hard fought reelection, this week on "Firing Line."

- I never really felt like this was Lisa versus Donald Trump.

It was something that I was going to do for my state.

- [Margaret] A pioneer in American politics, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska called for Trump's resignation after January 6th and was the only Republican senator up for re-election who had voted to convict the former President.

Trump went all out against her.

- You're going to fire your RINO senator.

- [Margaret] But failed to stop Murkowski from winning a fourth term to the senate.

Murkowski, who has gone against her party on issues ranging from health care to Supreme Court nominations, - I could not conclude that he is the right person for the court.

- [Margaret] Is no stranger to tough campaigns, once even winning as a write in candidate.

But Alaska is now leading the way on rank-choice voting, a reform proponents say could save democracy.

- When the people do not trust the institutions of their governance, where are we as a country?

- [Margaret] What does Senator Lisa Murkowski say now?

- [Narrator] "Firing Line" with Margaret Hoover is made possible in part by Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, The Fairweather Foundation, The Tepper Foundation, The Asness Family Foundation, Charles R. Schwab, and by The Rosalind P. Walter Foundation and Damon Button.

- Senator Lisa Murkowski, welcome to "Firing Line."

- Thank you so much.

It is so good to be with you, Margaret.

Thank you for the invitation.

- You were elected to your fourth term in the U.S. Senate last November.

And before we dive into it, I should disclose that I am the president of an organization which works to advance LGBT equality amongst Republican federal office holders.

And that organization supported you in your reelection.

- Thank you.

- You were the only Republican who was up for reelection in 2022 who had voted to convict Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial.

The Alaska Republican Party censured you, and President Trump made it a personal mission to defeat you.

And yet you won your reelection with almost 54% of the vote.

What was it like to take on Donald Trump head on?

- You know, in reflection, I never really felt like this was Lisa versus Donald Trump.

It was something that I was going to do for my state.

I was not going to do it to beat Donald Trump.

I wasn't going to do it to poke him in the nose.

I was going to do it because I felt that Alaskans deserved to have good continued representation.

And you don't roll over for the bully.

If you feel strongly enough about what you do, you stand up, you do your job, you put it out there to the Alaskan electorate and you see what they do.

And what they did is they returned me to the Senate for a fourth term.

- In 2020, Alaskans voted to change how primary and general election voting works in Alaska.

- Right.

- And that new process came right in time for your reelection in 2022.

Alaska tested nonpartisan, pick one primary systems, and ranked choice voting in the general election.

Now, because this is an unusual system across the country, can you explain how that primary process works and how the general election works that's different from regular voting?

- Yeah, yeah.

Well, about 12 years, maybe a little bit longer, actually, Alaska did have an open primary system.

In other words, if you were a Republican, you could vote for anybody on the slate, Republican, Democrat, independent, whatever.

We went to a closed primary, as so many states have.

We did that, again, about 12, 15 years or so ago.

But Alaskans weighed in and said, "We want more participation in our elections.

We want greater voice in how our representatives are selected."

And so they moved towards a relatively novel approach, basically opening up the primary again.

So the top four vote getters in the primary advanced, regardless of party.

So you could have four Republicans advance.

You could have two Rs and two Ds.

You could have any configuration.

But the top four names went forward.

And then in the general election, what you then did is you selected among those four.

Now, people have suggested that somehow or other this is complicated.

This is too difficult for people to understand.

- Was it complicated?

- No.

I mean, think about it.

You go to a restaurant.

You've got a whole slate of things in front of you.

Do I want the chicken fajita?

Do I want the beef tacos?

Do I want the enchiladas?

You select.

We can prioritize.

It's not hard.

- So once the four primary candidates advance to the general election, you, Lisa Murkowski, go to the polls, and you vote for your first, second and third choice for U.S. senator.

And then what happens in the tabulation?

- So then, if somebody among those top four, if somebody has achieved over 50%, they win.

There's no recount, if you will.

So if nobody pulls 50, then what happens is the person on the bottom of the stack, who received the fewest votes, their second choices are reallocated to the others.

And you go through that process until one candidate has received over 50%.

- And this is how you ended up achieving 54%, almost 54% of the ballots.

- Yes, When all the tabulation was done, I had received 54%.

- So after having survived your reelection with this new system, are you a supporter of ranked choice voting?

- I am.

And it's interesting.

If you look at the numbers, I won the general without the help of ranked choice.

So I think that that's important to just state.

But as a candidate, as one who went through this, I think it's good.

Let me put it a little bit more in context.

About 26% of Alaskan electorate identify as Republicans, about 17% Democrats.

That means you've got over 60% of the population that chooses not to affiliate with either of the two major parties.

Where do they go?

Where is their political home?

In a primary, they don't feel like there's any real incentive to participate in that.

And then they get into the general, and what they've been given are two individuals on the extremes of both sides.

And they look at that and say, "How do I have a voice in this?"

Ranked choice gives them that voice.

- Ranked choice gives them a voice in the general.

But it sounds like, also, because of the open primary process that takes the top four and advances them, that's really where unaffiliated voters get to weigh in.

- It is.

I think we have become far too partisan in this country.

And I think we see that in Washington, DC.

We see individuals that their heart, their mind knows where they should be on a particular vote.

But they know that they're going to get creamed by their party if they vote the wrong way.

They know they will be primaried by somebody who is more conservative or perhaps more liberal.

And so the parties have really come to exert levels of influence, in my view, that we need to look at this.

We need to figure out, all right, is this really where the American electorate is, giving all the strength to party leadership?

- And is it, it sounds like what you're saying is, it's closed partisan primaries that are controlling the quality of candidates at the state level.

- I think we see that.

Yeah.

- If Alaska had continued to have a closed partisan primary, would you have won your primary?

- If the primary had been closed, as we have seen in the past dozen years, I think it's a fair statement that I would have had a very, very difficult time in moving past that primary.

- Yeah, and this happened to you, actually.

- It did, in 2010.

- Once before, in 2010.

- I'm evidence.

- In a closed partisan primary and the Tea Party wave, you ended up having to win by running as an independent, a write-in candidate by the majority of Alaskans.

- It was crazy, because nowhere on that ballot was my name present.

There was a little circle and a line.

And we needed to educate voters that you needed to write in my name, you needed to spell it correctly, and you needed to fill in the little oval next to it.

Because if you spelled it correctly but you didn't fill in the oval, the computer wouldn't catch it and count it.

So we handed out rubber wristbands that said, "Fill it in, write it in."

And there was a little bubble and the name.

So I've worn this bracelet since 2010.

My husband turned the rubber wristband into gold.

But it's, "Fill it in.

Write it in, Lisa Murkowski."

And it's a reminder.

It's a reminder to me every day that I was returned to this position in the Senate because of Alaskan voters who said, "We're going to reject the extremes, and we're going to put our confidence in you."

- You have said, Alaska's different.

But is there something about these voter reforms that actually could have applicability beyond Alaska?

- Yes.

I said during our election last year, we want to make sure that how Alaska proceeds with ranked choice is demonstrated as a good model, one that other states will look at and say, "We like the voice that ranked choice gave.

We like the fact that candidates were, actually, perhaps a little bit more civil to their opponents, when I knew that I needed to get Margaret's second place vote.

So I'm not going to trash talk her in our debates or in my public encounters because I want to pick up some of that support too."

So we saw a level of civility in many cases, in some cases not so much.

But I think what we demonstrated in Alaska was the possibility that electoral reform can happen and it can deliver outcomes that are less partisan and perhaps less politically rancorous.

- When you look at the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Donald Trump, only two were returned by voters to the House of Representatives.

And both of them were from states that had implemented some kind of voter reform.

What does that tell you?

- It tells me that the voters in states where the voter really is encouraged to look at the individual, they want that individual to stand up for them, to stand up for what is right, instead of to stand up for the party position.

That's what that tells me.

- You've said that we shouldn't assume that Trump will be the 2024 Republican presidential nominee.

But right now, the polling, as you know, is telling a different story.

About half of Republican primary voters support President Trump for the nomination.

Do you think there is a possibility that he will not be the GOP nominee?

- Yes.

Yes.

- How?

- This is July.

We have over a year, just about a year until the conventions.

Lots can happen.

- Yeah.

- You have an individual that's running for the presidency with two indictments against him, with the potential for perhaps a third, an individual who, in my view, defied and undermined his oath of office, which is to, first and foremost, protect and defend the people of this country.

In my view, this former president incited an insurrection on the Capitol.

To me, it should be done.

It should be over.

But apparently for many Republicans in this country, they have chosen to look beyond that.

- And in some cases, the indictments seem to have strengthened the former president's position within the Republican primary contest.

- That's what it would appear.

And I don't understand why, with the strong candidates that we have right now.

Tim Scott, what an honorable man.

Look at Nikki Haley, what she has already demonstrated with her leadership.

- There is a candidate in the primary contest who is not holding back at all when it comes to criticizing Donald Trump.

Of course, that's Chris Christie.

Asa Hutchinson has also not minced words.

- Right.

- But they demonstrate a different approach.

Tim Scott and Nikki Haley are hesitant to criticize and distinguish themselves from Donald Trump, but Chris Christie and Asa Hutchinson aren't.

What do you make of that difference?

- I think you have candidates that are trying to figure out how they cut through the Trump noise.

- Yeah.

- And it may be that, if we see, for instance, Chris Christie gaining traction because he is more forthright with his words, that perhaps the others will be more bold in that way.

- And I should point out that Chris Christie is, at least in the most recent New Hampshire polls, climbing up, he is now third.

Donald Trump has around 37%.

DeSantis has around 11.

And Christie's at 10.

- So he's getting in the double digits.

That's good.

- [Margaret] That, yeah, it looks like, - And that might be that signal.

- Your Democratic colleague Joe Manchin is being courted by an outside effort to run as an independent in the 2024 election.

This has been called by the organization No Labels an insurance policy.

Do you see any scenario where a third party candidacy isn't a spoiler for Donald Trump and just returns him to the White House?

- Yeah.

You know, there's been no end of second guessing and people moving the numbers around.

I don't know on that.

Others far smarter than me with elections can weigh in there and they certainly have.

Think about it.

If we go into a 2024 scenario where it's basically a redo of 2020 between Trump and Biden, what does that say?

That we have nobody better than these two?

And so an independent or somebody who is offering something in the middle, people are hungry for that.

- Yeah.

- I can tell you, I'm talking to people up north.

They're asking, 'cause they know that I'm very close with Joe Manchin.

And I brought him up to this state a couple of times and he endorsed me.

I've endorsed him.

- For a senate reelection.

- For senate reelection, and I have no qualms, no qualms, providing my endorsement to a Democrat who I think has been not only extraordinarily helpful to me and Alaskan issues, but in the Senate as well.

And Alaskans are saying, "Can you talk Joe into running?"

That's not for me to do.

I do think about what a third party will bring to the equation.

We've seen it before on multiple occasions, very wealthy people who had an opportunity to fund their race, who weren't able to cut through.

You know, maybe it was just not the right time.

Maybe now would be a more opportune time.

I think they just don't know.

- If he decided to run, would you support him if he decided to run?

- I tell you, if it's a matchup between Biden and Trump, I know exactly where I'd go.

I would go with Joe Manchin.

I am one who doesn't like to use my vote for the lesser of evils.

I want to be proactive in who I think could do the job.

I think Manchin could do the job.

But will our system allow for that?

That I don't know.

- How would you determine that that vote wouldn't send Trump back to the White House?

- I'd have to, I would really have to do some serious evaluation.

And again, this is July of 2023, and who knows?

Who knows what's going to happen in the months ahead?

We just don't know.

- You are a pro-choice Republican, one of two in the entire United States Congress.

And when Roe v. Wade was overturned, you had been assured through your private conversations with the justices that this was settled law and you had expressed real disappointment.

- Super precedent.

Super precedent.

- A super precedent.

You expressed your disappointment at the court's decision and also at the level of confidence that Americans have in the court, which has been shaken.

This session, the court also made several high profile decisions, including one that dismantled affirmative action.

What is your reaction to the recent affirmative action decision?

- I think I saw it coming.

I think many saw it coming.

- In contrast to Roe?

- In contrast to Roe, yes.

And so I was not as surprised about the decision on affirmative action as I was with the Dobbs decision.

- What are the consequences of the decline in public confidence in the Supreme Court?

- Oh, it's huge.

It's huge.

I see happening in the court the same erosion of public confidence and trust that we have in the executive and in the legislative.

And we've always been able to kind of rely on the courts to be the solid, they're serious.

They're nonpolitical.

They're in their black robes, and just the facts, ma'am.

And you may disagree with the end result of a case, but was it free from political overtones?

We've always had that confidence.

And I fear that we're seeing that same erosion of public trust.

And when the people do not trust the institutions of their governance, if they have lost that trust, where are we as a country?

- When Roe was overturned in the Dobbs decision, Clarence Thomas suggested that other decisions that relied on substantive due process ought to also be reviewed.

And that sent alarm bells off in the LGBT community, which then went on to pass into law the codification of marriage equality for all LGBT Americans, a bill that you voted for.

That same response has not happened with the pro-choice activists.

After Dobbs decision came down and Roe v. Wade was overturned, you teamed up with Senator Kaine, Tim Kaine, Susan Collins, Kyrsten Sinema, to write a bipartisan bill that would codify the freedom for women to obtain an abortion.

This is the Reproductive Freedom Act For All.

But it has gone nowhere in the Senate.

- Nowhere, mm-hmm.

- Why wouldn't Democrats want to sign on to the most basic opportunity to codify Roe into law?

- You are asking such a basic, reasonable question.

Why not codify?

And we've seen the Democrats' response, which is the Women's Reproductive Freedom Act, which is much broader than just the codification.

And I think, immediately after Dobbs, the reaction was we gotta go full out.

We have to ask for everything.

There can be no nuance to this.

It has to be entirely the Democrats' bill.

It's interesting.

It's interesting to note that the two Republicans, myself and Susan Collins, were not brought in to input onto that bill.

I think the approach that was taken was, "We're going to just move out with our bill and we're going to use it to demonstrate that Republicans don't care about a woman's right to choose, that Republicans are not interested."

Is it possible to gain some support for our bill?

I think if Democrats realize that they're not going to be able to advance theirs, then it allow for the thought that maybe we can move this bipartisan bill.

But before we can do that, we need to find six, eight more Republicans who are willing to do that.

And if you look at the current makeup in the Senate, we're hard pressed to find those individuals that would recognize that what we had pre-Dobbs around this country was working in so many states.

- The Equal Rights Amendment, also known as the ERA, - Yeah, yeah.

Another good one.

- Was first introduced in 1923.

You have supported efforts for its ratification.

- Yep.

- On the original "Firing Line" with William F. Buckley Jr, he hosted a debate about the ERA that included Phyllis Schlafly, - Wow.

- Who, of course, led the crusade against the ERA, - Yeah.

- And ERA supporter Anne Scott.

Take a look at this clip.

- The whole is misrepresented as a woman's rights amendment.

In fact, the principal beneficiary will be men.

It will give men a great opportunity to get out from under their obligations, their obligations to be drafted and to support their families, et cetera, et cetera.

- That, - It will entitle, it will entitle men and women both to have equal rights of citizenship.

And I don't favor, I don't believe in favoring one sex over the other.

I think that people should be treated as human beings first.

- How would finally ratifying the ERA help women in the United States?

- Well, we like to think of ourselves as a place where women are treated equally.

But look at Congress.

Between the House and Senate, women make up about 25%.

I don't know, but it seems to me that women make up half the population.

So the fact that we've got only a quarter represented in our governance system doesn't seem to make sense.

Look at, look at the financial sector.

Look at all aspects of business where we are not yet equal in most areas.

We're still dealing with pay discrepancy, depending on what part of the country you're from, but I think, on average, it's still about 79 cents that a woman earns for a man's dollar.

So I look at it and believe very strongly that it is yet one more commitment that we make to women's equality.

In Alaska, we were a very early mover, right?

After it was introduced, we signed on, I think it was in 1974.

So certainly, in Alaska, we think we've checked that box.

But we have not.

And I think that that is demonstrated in just the statistics that we continue to face as women.

- Lisa Murkowski, thank you for joining me on "Firing Line."

- Thank you.

It's been a great, great opportunity.

- [Narrator] "Firing Line" with Margaret Hoover is made possible in part by Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, The Fairweather Foundation, The Tepper Foundation, The Asness Family Foundation, Charles R. Schwab, and by The Rosalind P. Walter Foundation and Damon Button.

[gentle music] [gentle music continues] [gentle music continues] [gentle music continues] [chiming music] [contemplative music] - [Narrator] You're watching PBS.