And we're back with another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle,
senior Elections correspondent at The Federalist and your experienced Shirpa on today's Quest for
Knowledge. As always, you can email the show at radio at the Federalist
dot com, follow us on x at FDRLST, make sure to subscribe wherever
you download your podcast, and of course to the premium version of our website
as well. I'm joined today by Andrew McCoy mac warner. Mac Warner serving
as West Virginia's Secretary of State since twenty seventeen. He's a West Point graduate
and a veteran of the US Army JAG Corps. He needs all of that
experience to deal with the real trouble that he has been working on in his
championing of the fight for election integrity, and there are few across this country
in his position who do it anywhere near as well as he does. Mac.
Thanks so much for joining us on today's edition of the Federalist Radio Alum.
Hey, Matt, great to be with you, Thanks for inviting me.
Let me start off right off the top and ask you this question,
because you've been dealing in this arena for such a long time. On a
scale of one to ten, how concerned are you about the integrity of the
November election ahead? Probably about eight? Some serious concerns. And the reason
is we just haven't done the cleanup and rectifying from the twenty twenty election that
needed to be done. A lot of problems were identified, and some states
made some efforts, but it certainly hasn't caught on nationwide, especially in Congress.
I think that's going to be part of our discussion today. An effort
to do that is in progress, but the states needed to take this on
individually since the federal government was pretty much a logjam, and it just hasn't
been done. Why has there been so much resistance to cleaning up the voter
rolls? I just wrote a piece for the Federalists this week, and you
can go to several states. I'm not picking on this one, but this
one in particular, the state of Nevada, a critical swing state in the
upcoming election, as if not the dirtiest among the dirtiest voter roles in this
country. And yet I note that Washaw County, Washaw County, which is
home to Reno and largest populated area in Nevada is absolutely resist any evidence,
and good evidence. I might add that they've got voters who have not only
moved out of state, they're registered in other states and voting in other states.
Why is there so much resistance to cleaning up the voter roles. Well,
you're asking that question from the perspective of somebody who cares about election integrity,
cares about fairness and fundamental integrity in the system. And I would say
one side of the political spectrum, the Republicans and Conservatives care about that,
They care about the rule of law, they care about doing things properly.
The Democrats, the progressives, it could be anything from not caring, from
understanding how that helps them and their cause helps them maintain power, and to
them, so much of this as maintaining power, maintain any control. And
then if you want to get down to it, it could be as much
as wanting fraud, wanting that to occur because that does, again help help
their side. So without the hard evidence to say in a particular case,
say Nevad or whatever, I'm not going to go down that path and cast
those stones, but it answers your question is why would somebody not be interested
in that it could be any of those, any of those factors. You've
made that a priority. I mean, you have taken West Virginia a long
way. In fact, very early on in your tenure as Secretary of State
of West Virginia, that was a top priority. How difficult was it ultimately
to clean out tens of thousands of names? It just simply should not have
been on that list. Well, that's the other factor, and that is
I don't want to say it's difficult, but it takes effort, it takes
time and resources and basically the will to do it. And so I can't
men to office with that will to do it. And I had assistance.
These were my fifty five county clerks, and for the most part, they
wanted to clean up these voter rolls and they just needed the assistance. They
needed the data, they needed the information, and so we went to work
together and in a short order, well, since I've been in office,
we've taken off over four hundred thousand names, not tens of thousands, but
hundreds of thousands of names. I noticed that I'm saying names, I'm not
saying people. We took off names the people had died, they had moved
their duplicate registrations. So simply by paying attention and working together where I would
get them the information. I didn't take off one name. As the Secretary
of State. I gave the information to the clerks, and they took those
names off. They're the ones who live in the counties. They know the
people, they get the obituaries and the local papers. They have that hands
on experience. I simply provided them information said, here's from the master death
the roles or felony convictions and so forth, here are people that basically should
be red flag. You got to look into that. And when they went
through their voter registration lists and saw those names, they then were able to
take those off. And so a small state Clake West Virginia, we only
have one point one million registered voters, we were able to take off over
four hundred thousand names. It's just an incredible bloating of the roles that needed
to be cleaned up. And now at the same time we've put on about
three hundred thousand new names, so there wasn't a huge differential in between.
You know, it was like four hundred thousand and came off on one day,
and we went from one hundred one point one million to seven hundred thousand
voters. This occurred over time and so they almost stayed balanced. But we
did reduce the numbers fair amount. And what that does and not only cleans
up the roles and reduces the opportunities for fraud, but it also gives you
a more accurate turnout. If you have those bloated rolls, then it looks
like you have a low turnout and everybody complains about, oh, nobody cares
and whatnot. Well, in reality, our participation was much better than before.
In fact, in the twenty twenty election, we had the second highest
voter turnout in the history of the state. And so nothing good comes from
a bloated voter role. I think think of a voter going into vote and
the poll worker has to go through pages and pages and pages of names that
people have died or duplicate names and that sort of thing. So plus you
have to account for ballots. If you're doing paper ballots, you have to
have ballots for all those people. So again, nothing good comes from a
bloated role, and that's why we cleaned it up and it's been very well
received throughout the state of West Virginia and you proved it could be done.
I mean, that's I think the powerful message that West Virginia said. If
you have a secretary of state who's committed to cleaning up the roles, and
you have clerks as well, that's very, very important. As we just
noted in Nevada, you don't always have that, even if you would in
Nevada, they don't have a secretary of state who's committed to cleaning up the
voter rules. But you prove that it can be done. What do you
say? And I think you've just discussed it, you've just noted it.
But you took a lot of heat, obviously, as anybody, any election
integrity devoted secretary of state or elections official takes heat for as the left in
particular likes to call it, and the accomplice media, purging the voter rules.
That's the term that they use, that somehow there's going to be someone
on there that should not have been removed and they're going to be disenfranchised from
voting. How do you answer those critics point to four hundred thousand names we've
taken off and not one lawsuit, not one complaint, not one problem to
all that hype about and I've had to correct every interviewer who uses the term
purge. You know, we clean the roles. The purge has that connotation
of taking somebody off inappropriately, and that just never occurred. Yes, indeed,
and other issues that are tied into that are people who should not be
on there to begin with, because they're not eligible, because they're not residents
of this country. We talk about on today's edition the Save Act in Congress,
also known as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, it is legislation to
compel proof of citizenship for voters, which is a requirement as it's but yet
you have it seems to me every Democrat in the House, the Biden administration,
the President of the United States fighting against this basic voter integrity measure.
What do you make of all of that? Mac Well, that gets back
to the comment that I had at the very start of this the reasons why
somebody either supports it or doesn't support it. They clearly think that this the
opposition to it, that you don't have to show citizenship, don't have to
show proof of citizenship, is going to help them, and so that is
why that they're opposing it. Do they want fraud? I don't know.
Yeah, I can't go as quite as far as to say that, but
I can say that they think that these millions of illegal you know, aliens
that have come across the border it could possibly vote and that would help They
think that would help their side. And so it's just a conundrum here that
Republicans Conservatives fighting for integrity and the other side not wanting that process to be
cleaned up. And so just for the listeners, if they're not tuned into
it, what it is, this act requires that they show proof of citizenship.
And right now, what the other side, that left is saying,
is it's illegal for a non citizen to vote already, Well, there is
no enforcement mechanism. If a non citizen goes and registers then and their vote
gets into the system, you can't go in and pull it out, you
know, with an anonymous ballot, you can't go in and pull it out
afterwards. And so the remedy there's no remedy either in many cases is against
them because they can oftentimes say, well, I just checked the block.
I didn't know what I was checking. At D and B, the Department
of Motor vehicles or I wasn't aware that I couldn't vote, and prosecutors are
very reluctant to prosecute those situations. And the left always says, well,
there's not enough of that to change the outcome of election. And my response
is always, is one vote illegal vote enough? Is it ten? Is
it one hundred? You know, what's the criteria where you have I say
that not even one vote illegal vote is appropriate. So that's why we need
the Save Act. And the Save Act requires that you show proof of citizenship
and it has a remedy for the person who registers someone who is not a
citizen. And that's the real key to this is we have to get to
a remedy to make the people who are registering folks accountable for their actions.
And that's what Save Act does. That's why it's so important and it should
be passed. That's a big part of it, MAC And that's what I
don't think the general public fully understands here. And of course the general public
doesn't fully understand here because again I point to the accomplished media which is running
interference for the Democrats message on this front. Well, we already have this.
What we have right now is the honor system. We have the honor
system that says, as you check that box, you are saying on penalty
of some potential prosecution. As you mentioned, it is very unlikely that the
individual is going to be prosecuted because it's difficult to track and prosecutors just simply
have said on multiple occasions they don't have the time because they're dealing with the
other issues that illegal immigration has brought to this country in waves time. Issues,
the federal issues, those sorts of prosecutions, so election fraud, election
integrity issues are anything but top priority for most prosecutors in this country. But
that said, we also have something called Biden Bucks, which is the federal
government under an executive order signed by President Joe Biden in March of twenty twenty
one, just as he came into office that basically uses all of the federal
agencies to operate get out the vote voter registration targeting of course left leaning voters.
So now you couple that with no enforcement measure at present when it comes
to illegal immigrants illegally voting, and you've opened up a huge can of worms,
have you not? You have, and that's exactly why you did it
is, that is a means of using your federal tax dollars, all of
our federal tax dollars, as they get out the vote effort for the Democrat
Party. It's using six hundred federal agencies as registration centers for people who use
their services. And typically, so take the example if we've now had anywhere
from nine to twelve million illegal immigrants come across the border. Now if you
have DHS and HUD and all the different federal agencies handing these people voter registrations
and they start registering, and they look up on the wall and there's President
Biden's picture there on the wall, and they're explained that this is the party
that's allowing you to come across an open border, and so forth. Who
do you think they're going to register for? Well, that's exactly why they're
doing it, and it's exactly why within we objected to this as soon as
he put out that executive order and it's one for zero one nine, And
after they refuse to respond to us for a year, I sent them a
letter and I think we had fifteen other Secretaries of States who signed on to
it, objecting to it, saying you need to resend this. This is
not constitutional. And the reason I say that is because Article one, section
four of the US Constitution, it's known as the Election Calls, specifically says
the time, manner, and place of elections shall be left to state legislatures.
And it's not to state governors, not to state secretaries of state,
not to the federal government, not to Congress. The way that an election
is to be run is to be left to the state legislature. And so
we have fifty states and they can each come up with their own way of
describing who should register, how they should register, when they should register,
how you vote, where the voting locations are, and that sort of thing
that's to be left to the state legislator. That's how our whole federalist system
was designed. Is the states have these powers and right to run their own
elections, and that's in the US Constitution. So when Biden comes in at
his administration and says we're going to make these federal agencies murder registration centers,
I say, I maintain that that is against the US Constitution and that we
should not be accepting registrations that come in that are not approved by our state
legislature. West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner joining us on this edition of
the Federalist Radio Hour. How is that going for you on the Biden buck
side of things. I know you and I know members of Congress. I
know government watchdogs have tried and tried to get this administration to either rescind the
order, turnover documents, explain what they're doing. They've refused at every turn.
Have you heard back yet from the administration about your demand that they how
they follow the Constitution? Now? What do you think? Of course,
they've ignored us, they had completely. I had a feeling, Mac,
I had a feeling covering this issue as I have. Yes, they're going
to ignore us as long as they possibly can. And that's why you need
people in Congress like that they're doing with the Save Act. Is they've got
to implement these things from the Congress. Or the other way is to go
to the courts, try to get this in front of the Supreme Court at
some point and say that it's unconstitutional. I think there's some cases making their
way up the court system. There are, But will it be too late?
Yeah, for the twenty twenty four I said, sure, it's going
to be too late. Yeah, we have a Supreme Court case that's depending
before the Supreme Court. It was actually submitted in this last session. The
Supreme Court laid in the session said it would take up that case comes back,
you know, in late September. How far along are we at that
point. How much of an impact has this executive order made on the outcome
of the election by that point, especially with early voting across the country.
Exactly, that's the concern. In fact, we wrote an amicus and had
maybe eight or nine other states that joined in on it in support to that
case, to say, what we're asking for is the US Supreme Court to
get to the merits of it. So many times they find the lack of
standing or latches or some other legal technicality to not address the issue itself.
And what our amicus does is it asks for get to the merits, and
the merits are this is supposed to be left to state legislators and the administration
just coming out with a blanket all federal agencies are going to be voter registration
centers is unconstitutional. That's what we're looking for, and we're hopeful that they'll
take it up in September. But like you said at that point, the
damage is probably been done. We're talking about the perfect storm here. I
mean, we're talking about illegal immigrants potentially voting in this election. We're talking
about dirty voter rolls. We're talking about Biden Bucks, the federal order to
get out the vote, order to re elect Joe Biden. I don't know
how you look at it any other way in terms of what we know what
they're doing with federal agencies. And speaking of federal agencies, something you and
I have talked about. You've talked about publicly your concern about federal agencies the
ABC organizations. One in particular I can think of is Homeland Securities, Cybersecurity,
and Infrastructure Security Agency, also known as SISA, and they're clear as
you have noted interference in previous elections. Let's talk a little bit about where
we've been with these agencies and where you think all of that might be going
in this election cycle. Well, my biggest concern, and I think this
is really one that reaches the worst that has ever happened in the United States
of America, and that was when Tony Blincoln, who is now our current
US Secretary of State, was on the Biden campaign back before the twenty twenty
election, and he came up with this idea to discredit the Hunter Biden laptop
story and labeled his Russian disinformation, and he passed that to Mike Morrell,
the acting director at the CIA, and then they ran with it and got
these fifty one so called intelligence experts, many of them being formal former CIA
directors. I mean we're talking Clapper and Brennan and some of those folks,
and they all signed on to this had the the emphasis of the CIA,
and they said that the Hunter Biden laptop was not had been debunked, what
had and they knew that, and they later admitted that. Mike Morrell admitted
that under oath in front of Jim Jordan's Congressman Jim Jordan's House Judiciary Committee,
said that they did this for the express purpose of helping Biden and to defeat
Trump. So it was for very political reasons and outcomes, and they were
successful, and they did it. They did this right before the twenty twenty
election. Biden used it in his last debate against Trump right before that election,
and Trump didn't have time to get to the facts, get to the
bottom of it, and so that's what the American voter went to the polls
with thinking that this was a Russian disinformation campaign, and really what it was
was a Democrat lie to the American people using the CIA former CIA operatives officers,
and they got away with it. They pulled a psyche logical operation off
against the United States of America, and it directly impacted the outcome of that
election. And so if they are able to do that get away with it,
and they did, and we haven't done anything to clean that up,
what's to keep them from doing that again? And so it then gets worse.
They then went to the FBI, and the FBI went to Zuckerberg at
Facebook and said, suppress this story. It's a you know, the hundred
byteen laptop is not real. It's rushing disinformation. And Zuckerberg complied with that.
And so you've got this cabal. There's a group of just bad actors
right at the top in the middle of this now that Biden administration. And
they got away with it once. That's why I said, I'm as concerned,
you know, at an eight or nine level with the security of this
next election. If they got away with it once, what's going to keep
them from doing it again since we haven't taken the correct the measure as we
needed to in the intervening years. You tried to recently, I know you
followed the US Supreme Court decisions on this front, and because of standing,
apparently in one critical case brought originally by Missouri and some other plaintiffs, you
know, we have a Supreme Court ruling that says, well, there's not
standing here for these plaintiffs to take on the case when they were clearly suppressed
in their information trying to get out critical information, including election information, as
you just mentioned in twenty twenty and then following up of course in the intervening
years, and my colleague Sean Fleetwood has reported that this federal agency is back
at it again and looks like they're working with other federal agencies to do what
they did before. So how much of a role do you think that will
ultimately play in the twenty twenty four election. Well, this is also fascinating
because some of these very fundamental characteristics of American society and freedom are at play
here. The case you mentioned Missouri and Louisiana taking on Facebook, saying that
when the FBI went to Facebook and told them to suppress it. Okay,
now we're getting into freedom of speech. The government's not supposed to be able
to do, you know, suppress speech. They can't form any law that
suppresses speech. But what the federal government did they went to the FBI or
the FBI went to Facebook and had this social media company suppressed freedom of speech.
You know, this was talking about the election. When people would put
on Facebook posts that the election was still wonder they argued against the COVID shots,
that sort of thing. Facebook took that down, and the particularly in
this case with the hundred Biden laptop story, and when they would suppress that
the candidates or the people are making those posts that my freedom of speech has
been abridged. It's been abridged by the FBI coercing the Facebook to take these
down. The Supreme Court held that in a six to three decision, said
that they hadn't shown harm, that they hadn't shown these plaintiffs hadn't shown specific
harm to themselves. Because of this, it was kind of a nuanced thing.
I of course went with it. Centers thought that they had the better
argument that said, this is the worst kind of government interference and government suppression
of freedom of speech when they're using social media. So this all now gets
back to the two thirty protection Section two thirty protection. What are these social
media platforms? Of the simply platform and you can put anything on it.
But what they're getting right now is the enjoyment of not being sued for stuff
that they might go on. But then they can make their choices to what
they want to pull off, and of course they are more favorable towards the
Democrats, the liberals, the progressive side of things, so they'll pull off
the conservative like Twitter took Trump off of their platform, but they let others
stay on. So we've got to get to the bottom of this at some
point and resolve this issue. We don't want our phone companies cutting off our
phone service because we're having a phone conversation like you and I are having right
now, and they say, well, we don't like the content, they're
going to shut you off. We can't have that with social media. So
it's a fascinating era that we're in right now. This is this generation's problem
to solve, just like we had to solve back years ago the FCC and
what you can put on TV and what responsibilities newspapers have and so forth.
We now have to resolve that in this day and age of social media,
artificial intelligence, and all of the great things that we have in this digital
age, Man, it can't be just one sided, favor one side not
the other, especially when it comes to elections fascinating and troubling age to say
the very least. Do you think people are waking up though to what this
administration, the Biden administration, has done to the Constitution, has done to
the idea of reality and truth. And I ask you that in context of
what we've seen over the past couple of weeks. You know, it was
a week before Joe Biden's disastrous debate that fifty million people witnessed in some form
or another. It was a week before that that the Associated Press and the
usual suspects in the accomplice media were telling us that Joe Biden did not freeze
up on a fundraising stage before the Hollywood glitterati glitterati, that he did not
have to be assisted off the stage by his former boss, former President Barack
Obama. And they told us not to believe our lying eyes, so to
speak, not to believe what we all witnessed, and then we win.
And that's what we did in the debate. You know, a very cognitively
challenged elderly man who is struggling with his capacities, to put it nicely,
do you think that there are at least some American voters who are now saying,
hey, if they were telling us this about Joe Biden, maybe the
other stuff that guys like Mac Warner have been warning us out for a long
time, maybe that's true too. Some are, but not enough. And
it is in this world of you know, hyper or you know, very
divided politics that I think people either tune it out or turn it off.
And it takes something like this debate that was in front of all of America
for this to finally come around and start to say, well, maybe he's
not all there. And as we talked back on the executive order, several
of us were arguing about this three years ago and it's just now coming around
where we're trying to put into legislation to fix it. We're way too slow
to react. These elections come the presidential every four years, congressional elections every
two years, and we need to be more nimble. We need to respond
and fix these things. I'll give you one example. In Wisconsin, there
were the problems with the drop boxes. There were also probably Georgia and other
states with drop boxes. Wisconsin was one state that did try to effect to
do something about that after the twenty twenty election, and initially they came out
and said, those drop boxes are wrong. It's not been prescribed by the
legislature, So you will no longer use drop boxes in Wisconsin until the legislature
specifically says that you're allowed to do so. Well, in that intervening time
frame, there was a change at the Supreme Court an election, and they
with they went from three to two Republic into three to two Democrat, and
now with the Democrats in control, the Supreme Court went back the other way
and said, no, you can still use drop boxes. And so now
in this upcoming election they will still be using drop boxes. And the problem
with the drop boxes is in many cases unsupervised and you can just drop off
as many of these ballots that have been harvested as you want. In Georgia,
the law had said that, you know, you can only drop off
those for your immediate family members. But their videos of people dropping off hundreds
of ballots in these drop boxes, and once they're into that drop box,
how do you separate an improper ballot from a proper ballot? You know you
can't do so and so again Wisconsin trying to do the right thing, and
then it's gone back the other way when the politics changed. And that's not
the way our court system is designed. You're supposed to interpret the law regardless
of the politics. But obviously that's not the case. So that's why I'm
still worried about the upcoming election. The corrections haven't been made and we're still
playing politics with lawfare, people taking things into core to get their way rather
than abouting about the laws of the state in the US Constitution. Oh,
you are absolutely right. And the Wisconsin issue, I just wrote a piece
on that at the Federalist about you get what you pay for, and in
this case in Wisconsin, unfortunately, the people of Wisconsin got what the left
paid for. The most expensive Supreme Court judicial race in the history of this
country, tens of millions of dollars somewhere in the neighborhood of fifty million dollars
in that race, much of it coming from outside money, outside interest to
elect a liberal to that court, and now you have a four to three
majority and the court absolutely ignores what is clear in state statute. As you
mentioned, you cannot have these unmanned dropped boxes. And the previous Supreme Court
four to three conservative majority twenty twenty two said you can do this if you
change the law. But the law is very clear on this. Well,
the law really absolutely does not matter, it seems for the left wing agenda
in this country. Back to the Save Act, let me ask you this.
We know how important it is to make sure there's an enforcement mechanism to
make sure that people who shouldn't be voting aren't voting, because that dilutes the
vote of every legitimate voter, eligible voter out there. It's an absolute assault
on election integrity. And we have illegal immigrants voting in elections. That's an
absolute assault on election integrity. But is this an exercise in futility? The
House may pass this on Monday, it may have the votes to do that,
but obviously it's going to be stopped at the Democrat controlled Senate, and
we know that even by some strange force it passes there, Joe Biden's never
going to sign it. Well, it is an exers futility on the initial
look. However, the effort needs to be made for the purpose of election
integrity, and then we're positioned to bring it back up once we elect Trump
president and the Republican Senate, and hopefully maintain the Republican House, so we're
positioned to then move ahead. The other thing is this puts people on record
still where they stand on election integrity, and that's why it's important to go
ahead and move forward with it. So I'm pleased that they are proceeding with
it because it's exactly what you and I have been talking about. We need
to make these corrections when we identify the problems with our election system. This
is clearly one that has been identified, and we need to put people on
record as to whether they're for election integrity or for fraudulent elections. Final question
for you, and I very much appreciate the generosity of your time, particularly
knowing you're traveling and you're very busy these days, but you didn't run for
Secretary of State. Again, you did throw your hat in the ring to
run for governor of West Virginia. That didn't work out the way you wanted
to obviously in the primary, So the question is what's next for election integrity
warrior Mac Horner. Well, part of the reason for running for governor was
to be able to implement, i would say, on a faster timeline,
some of the election reforms that still need to be done here in the state
of West Virginia. And as governor, I could have pushed that with a
much more bigger bully pulpit than as Secretary of State. So I'm not going
anywhere. I'm not being put out the pastor Yet there's a future for me
with any number of hopefully in this new administration, both either at the state
or the national So the fight is going to continue. Interestingly, my brother
ran for Secretary State and he did get the Republican nomination, so we'll see
whether he will be successful in that endeavor. So the fight will continue,
and we continue, we will properly continue to lead here in West Virginia in
that effort because we have had this checkered passed in West Virginia of election fraud
and irregularities, and that's what propelled me to run for the office in the
first place, was to clean that up. And now that much of that
cleanup has been done, people in West Virginia enjoy this free, fair elections.
They know their vote is going to be counted and only legitimate votes are
going to be counted. And so you see that we've turned from a deep
blue state to deep red state, probably faster than any other states in the
nation's history. We are extremely conservative, and I think we finally aligned the
West Virginia politics with our conservative values are biblical foundations and so on, and
so I think we're firing on all cylinders now in West Virginia and some I'm
excited to have been a part of that, and we'll look forward to continuing
to do so in some role in the future. The one thing I would
like to just mention a term that has I guess categorized a lot of this
election irregularities is votes outside of the law. And that is different than an
illegal vote or an improper vote. I think it's an improper vote. So
if the state legislature hasn't said specifically this is how you are to be registered,
this is how you are to run elections, this is how votes are
to be counted, then any vote outside of that should not be counted and
there should be a remedy. So a quick example or two back to the
Georgia drop boxes, where somebody who's dropping off hundreds of them. The ballots
themselves might have invalid, but the process by which they got into the system
wasn't valid, and the fact that they can't be verified is a problem.
And so we have to have both an approach to was the balot valid and
if it wasn't, not only the person who cast it, but the person
who let that come into the system, whether it's the county clerk or the
person who is administering improperly the drop boxes, that sort of thing, you
have to have a remedy. So this brings it back to the Save Act,
and that is and that's why I'm so pleased that Congress is proceeding with
it, because they're trying to attack that problem of a vote that is cast
outside of the law. Clearly, an illegal alien casting a ballot because they
were able to do so through the DMV motor voter process. But it's not
just that person who casts the ballot, but the person who lets that ballot
come into the system needs to be held accountable. And now the question becomes,
what is the proper remedy. Is a civil case, is a criminal
case. What are we going to do to that clerk that allows that ballot
to come in or that DMV person who allows the person to register improperly.
And that's why we want that proof of citizenship there, to save both the
voter and the person who processes that vote from being put into a criminal or
a civil matter. So all of this stuff is intertwined, and I know
it's difficult to follow sometimes that that term a vote outside the law catches a
lot of these. One other quick one is Michigan that accepted ballots without signatures
or without proper addresses. Again, the person may have been eighteen, they
might have been a citizen, but if they didn't sign the ballot, and
that's what the legislature has said has to be done, then it's a vote
outside the law. And so a secretary state that just says we're going to
accept them all, just count them all, that's improper. So that person
should be held accountable. Question is what is the proper remedy. Those are
the challenges that we as conservatives and people who are interested in election integrity need
to address, need to take on. But it's hard to get there when
you have the other side that's fighting strenuously against it. Yeah, and therein
lies the problem is that we have very very little accountability for those who act
outside the law and those clearly breaking the law. And we could spend the
next hour talking about the myriad violations out there that certainly violated the intent of
the law in the name of you know whatever. In terms of an agenda,
I do know this. I know that you have a very bright future
ahead of you. The past is a strong indicator of that, and I
hope that it still involves election integrity because, as I said at the outset
of this conversation, there aren't many election integrity champions that measure up to Mac
Warner these days. I sure appreciate those actlades. I have enjoyed the job
immntally and it just kind of goes back to was on the Honor committee at
West Point, was involved in deciding a huge number of cases. But they're
The Cadet Code says that Cadet will not latcheater, steal or tolerate those who
do. And then toleration is such an important part of this whole election integrity.
If you see something that's improper, you shouldn't tolerate it, you need
to report it, and we need to find ways to address things that are
not consistent with the rule of law, which is the US Constitution and the
state laws that guide election integrity. Indeed, thanks to my guest today,
Mac Warner, Secretary of State for the great state of West Virginia, you've
been listening to another edition of The Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle,
senior correspondent at the Federalist. We'll be back soon with more. Well then,
stay lovers of freedom and anxious for the Fray