Terri Sewell on Principles & Values



Black women need a seat at the table

[On national politics]: "Black women have helped deliver Biden to the White House," Sewell said. "We helped deliver Senator Doug Jones to the Senate, and I do believe we deserve a seat at the table. The opportunity to represent my home district -- Selma, Alabama, Montgomery, Birmingham, the civil rights district -- is the honor of a lifetime for me. I've worked hard over the last 10 years and here's what I know for sure: Black women need a seat at the table."
Source: The Birmingham News on 2022 Alabama Senate race , Feb 20, 2021

Received Princeton distinguished public service award

The American Whig-Cliosophic Society presented Representative Sewell '86 with its highest honor, the James Madison Award for Distinguished Public Service. Sewell is the first female African American recipient in the honor's 60-year history. In her opening speech, Sewell reflected on her journey from "a public school in Selma, Alabama" to "Princeton, Oxford, Harvard Law School, and now to be the United States Congresswoman from [her] home district of Alabama."
Source: Daily Princetonian on 2022 Alabama Senate race , Dec 20, 2020

More things that combine and bind us than separate us

Sewell acknowledged the challenges in pushing for change as the lone Democrat in Alabama's Congressional delegation, noting that she "had to learn to compromise in order to get the resources and the opportunities" for her constituents. "There are more things that combine us and that bind [Americans] together than that separate us," Sewell continued, "and so trying to forge commonality trying to look for those areas where you can agree on and build out from there is critically important."
Source: Daily Princetonian on 2022 Alabama Senate race , Dec 20, 2020

Question Trump on Emoluments clause.

Sewell signed questioning Trump on Emoluments clause

Excerpts from Letter from 17 Senators to Trump Organization: The Trump Organization's continuing financial relationship with President Trump raises concerns about whether it is a pass-through for income that violates the Constitution's two Emoluments Clauses: Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 on foreign Emoluments; and Article II, Clause 7 on domestic Emoluments. Please answer the following questions to help Congress understand:

Legal Analysis: (Cato Institute, "Emoluments Clause vs. Trump Empire," 11/29/16): The wording of the Emoluments clause points one way to resolution: Congress can give consent, as it did in the early years of the Republic to presents received by Ben Franklin. It can decide what it is willing to live with in the way of Trump conflicts. If it misjudges public opinion, it will pay a political price at the next election.

FOIA argument: (ACLU Center for Democracy, "FOIA Request," 1/19/17): We filed our first Freedom of Information Act request of the Trump Era, seeking documents relating President Trump's conflicts of interest relating to his business connections. When Trump took the oath of office, he didn't take the steps necessary to ensure that he and his family's business interests comply with the Constitution. Some have even argued that upon taking the oath of office, the new president is already violating the Emoluments Clause.

Source: Letter from 17 Senators 17LTR-EMOL on May 18, 2017

Certify 2020 Presidential election as fully & fairly counted.

Sewell voted NAY blocking certification of the Electoral vote

Explanation of 1/6/21 Electoral Certification, by Emily Brooks, Washington Examiner:Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Paul Gosar led an objection to counting Electoral College votes from the state of Arizona, the first formal objection to state results in a series of moves that will delay the certification of Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election over President Trump. Cruz is advocating for an `emergency 10-day audit` of election returns in disputed states. The usually ceremonial joint session of Congress that convenes to count and accept Electoral College votes will be put on hold as the House and Senate separately debate the objection.