We are back with another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle,
Senior Elections correspondent of The Federalist and your experienced SHERPA 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 fbr LST, make sure it is
to subscribe wherever you download your podcast, and of course to the premium version
of our website as well. I'm joined today by J. Christian Adams,
President and General Counsel of the Public Interest Legal Foundation or PILF, a public
interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. The Foundation exists in fact two assist
states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in
American elections. I can think of no greater cause. Thank you for being
here, sir. We appreciate your time, thank you for having me,
and we appreciate the work that you do. Before we get into the fight
for integrity in our elections, and it's an all encompassing fight, I want
to get your take on the federal agency you once served. You worked for
the Voting Section in the US Department of Justice between two thousand and five and
twenty ten. If I'm remembering correctly, it seems today's Justice Department is not
your father's DOJ. So to speak, my colleague John Daniel Davidson wrote a
piece in The Federalist headlined Merrick Garland thinks his Justice Department is above criticism.
John Wrights Darland published an op ed in The Washington Post Tuesday declaring that unfounded
attacks on this Justice Department quote must end. It's strange and unsettling for the
chief law enforcement officer of the United States to write such a thing. Whatever
the merits of his argument, doesn't come off as an argument. It comes
off as a threat. Would you agree with that? And what do you
think of the state of today's Justice Department from the time that you work there
some twenty years ago? Now? Well, it's fascinating to hear the take
considering it a threat, because I will tell you I can understand somebody taking
it that way, like interpreting it that way. But what's interesting when I
heard it and I try to explain this to people in a lot of different
ways. I've written articles about this. I think I just had one recently
about this institutionalism at the DOJ. A lot of folks are like, well,
who's ever going to be held accountable? And I wrote in the piece
recently, I said nobody. They don't hold people accountable at DJ because they
don't think they did anything wrong. And there's an institutional reaction to defend the
institution whenever there's criticism. And this happened during the Bush administration, this happened
during This happened during Obama, this happened during Frankly, it happened during Trump.
This institutional defense mechanism. And then you have parts of the DJ like
Office of Professional Responsibility or the Inspector General, and outsiders think that these entities
exist the whole people accountable. No, no, no, they exist to
explain why nothing bad happened. There are some occasions where the Inspector General will
criticize something, like they did the voting section for having partisan biases in around
twenty twelve or so, but generally speaking, the Justice Department is above accountability.
So when I hear Marik Garland say what you just read, my reaction
is, oh, this is that old familiar institutionalism, that old time defense
of the Department speaking more than I hear a threat that's interesting. I think
about what we've experienced over the last three and a half years, and I'm
just curious how that institutionalism informs how it approaches election integrity in America. What
are you seeing on that front from this Department of Justice, Because it's the
same kind of thinking that's applied here, that questioning our elections in America makes
you an election denier, which is supposed to be the less scarlet letter of
course for all things election integrity. And they have a different view of election
integrity certainly than I do. But how does that institutionalism inform the law enforcement
arm when it comes to election integrity? Fascinating you point that out, because
the voting section and the Justice Department, where I worked, is where my
theory starts to snap a little bit, because the folks in the voting section.
Look, I worked in the voting section. It is the epicenter of
the Department of Justice election related power, and there it's a free for all.
Institutionalism starts to fail a little bit because of the documented misconduct over the
years. For example, the Department's been sanctioned millions of dollars by courts for
bringing bogus claims in court relating to electional This is documented. If I had
a PDF I could throw out to your listeners that would pop up in their
eyes right now where these sanctions are documented. So the voting section, so
of hardcore progressives, not just liberals, guys. Liberal is an outdated term.
These are hardcore progressives that come from the election activists extreme where it's kind
of hard to defend their behavior sometimes, and that's where the theory starts to
fail, is because they're so far on the fringe that institutionalism doesn't even work.
And to an extent, I'll tell you the truth, they're not doing
a whole lot. You know. We like to think of the Department of
Justice like as stomping around everywhere when it comes to the voting section. They're
actually not. I think that they're afraid of criticism. That's just my take.
But there's also a sloth, yes, I said it. If you're
listening. I've seen how slowly some attorneys work inside that agency, and I
think that might explain why they're not as active in the last couple of years,
you know, the progressives, And I think you're absolutely right. You
know, liberal is an outdated term. These are far left activists serving inside
the deep state, if you will. But there's a deep state that goes
well beyond Washington, d C. And you folks at pill for dealing with
that every day, the progressives that are inside election administration in states across this
country. And I think immediately of a state that I covered extensively in twenty
twenty in Wisconsin where we had the Zuckerbuck situation, and the folks at the
Foundation have been crucial in exposing that as well as many of the other progressive
agenda and progressive initiatives that are going on that are so far outside election integrity
it's startling. I guess let's start there with the work that PILF has been
doing, because I immediately think of your efforts in Green Bay have a clerk,
a city clerk there, top election official who has been has had some
legal issues, and those legal issues were very much brought forward by the Foundation.
Yeah. Look, we've been active in Wisconsin and we brought a case
against the Green Bay clerk. One of the things we found is happening in
Wisconsin is they're not following the law as it relates to same day registrants,
meaning you just walk up and vote without registering ahead of time, and there's
a procedure they're supposed to follow. They're supposed to send a confirmation mailing that
the address is real, and if the confirmation mailing bounces or otherwise fails,
there is supposed to be a referral to the district attorney for possible criminal prosecution.
Well, guess what, All over Wisconsin clerks have decided just to ignore
that law, this central feature of election integrity for same day registration. Otherwise
you can just walk up and vote in Wisconsin, like even if you're from
Iowa. So we found that the Green Bay clerk was just ignoring it,
and so we brought a case against her. And guess what we found.
She didn't even know what the law was. I mean, it's worse than
ignoring it. She was bewildered, she said, I don't know the laws.
This is not us saying what she said, This is her saying what
she said. Just absolutely amazing how much of that is playing out in election
offices across the country. You know, we talk about the willful problems in
place breaking election law, but how much ignorance is built into this? Yeah,
some of it. It's hard to know sometimes where the incompetence stops and
the malfeasance begins. Right, it's a gray line. And in the case
of Green Bay, you have an election official who midsheeting even know what the
core election law was like to keep the election safe. If this was Florida,
which is not, but if this is Florida, Governor DeSantis has the
power, for example, in Florida to remove incompetent election officials. In Green
Bay, it's a little more complicated, but we're going to be looking at
that. Yeah, I can certainly tell you covering Wisconsin politics, leftist Governor
Tony Evers is not going to do anything close to that, nor do I
believe he has the power to do that. That said, in Green Bay,
you have a clerk who was very instrumental in the Zuckerbuck scandal. In
Green Bay, if you recall in twenty twenty, they used the Mark Zuckerberg
funding on election administration so to speak. Basically, it was a get out
the vote effort and an effort to embed leftist activist inside of election offices in
Green Bay, Milwaukee Madison, and other big Milwaukee Democrats holds. You had
in that case a longtime Democrat operative who was embedded in the Green Bay election
administration offices. He had the keys to the room where they stored the absentee
ballots. And I bring all of this up because it's not just Green Bay
where this happened in twenty twenty. You had all kinds of these sorts of
things. And yet we are told by the people in power that we are
supposed to say that everything is just fine, that there is no problem at
all with leftist being involved at the very least. Don't we have a perception
problem in America with the leftist activism that's going on in our elections. Yeah,
for sure. I mean it's way worse than even people know. I
mean, there's this is how bad it gets. There are five to one
c three progressive groups set up that are parachuting employees for free, just like
they're doing the media to small town newspapers, they're parachuting employees into election offices
to work for free inside those election offices as employees. And there are progressive
groups set up to do that. Is there anything illegal about that? What's
the law? Tell me a lot that's being broken. So you see the
problem here. The left is just so devious and creative and figuring out how
to influence the levers of power. They keep cooking up stuff that the right
would never even think of, Like can you imagine a meeting of conservative tea
partiers like, hey, let's form a C three that makes employees available for
free for election offices all over the country. And then yeah, I mean
it just would never happen. Yeah, no doubt about it. And you
know, if it did happen, it's it's the Zuckerbuck situation. Say you
had a tea party group that did exactly that provided hundreds of millions of dollars
for election administration. I mean, there would be headlines every day for us
the accomplice media. There would be investigations by your former agency, the Department
of Justice. I mean, it would be amazing. So the disconnect there
is astounding. Let's talk about some of the modern work that you're doing.
It's so critical. I'm thinking of the work that PILF is doing across particularly
the swing states, like we said Wisconsin, those six or seven states that
ultimately very likely could decide the outcome of this twenty twenty four election. Your
work recently in Nevada is absolutely amazing. It involves really and on the ground,
boots on the ground investigation finding out that there are people on that polluted
voting list in Nevada that have at least they're claim to be living at commercial
commercial addresses, everything from casinos to funeral homes to strip clubs. You've got
a great video out on this. Tell us a little bit about that investigation
and what it really ultimately says about the voter rolls in Nevada. Yeah,
and don't forget the lynchpin of this is Nevada has automatic male voting. Yes,
that's what makes us like hyper speed. So commercial addresses, You're right,
Larry Flint's hustler club, dive bars, pot shops, liquor stores.
We went and we went to these addresses looking for the voter. You got
to see the video. I mean, some people think it's funny, some
people think it's tragic. I think it's a little both. I laugh and
cry when I watch it too. Yeah, and you know they're like you
walk in and they're like, we're looking for Joe Smith, and the lady
looks and goes, this is a casino, like or you go to like
a seven eleven or a bar and they're like nobody here lives here by that
name or the sonic drive in. This is where ballots are going. Folks,
when you watch this video PILF Nevada video, go watch it. You
can find it on Google or at public indurstleagual dot org. Ballots are going
to these places, that's what you need. And they're being voted from these
places. So something is off the rails of Nevada. That's why we filed
a lawsuit in Washoe County, which is Reno. There's going to be more
coming shortly, and we're asking for something more than nothing to be done about
this because nothing is what's being done now. And guess what here comes Mark
Elias and all the progressive groups trying to intervene in the case to defend the
broken status quo, which is what they're professionals at. And so that's what
we're fighting in Nevada. It's a disaster waiting to happen. The disaster has
already happened in Nevada. You have had Senate elections decided by more problemat or
fewer problematic votes than we found problematic voters. So this is a real serious
problem in Nevada. That's very interesting to me, not surprising, but interesting
that Mark Elias, of course the Democrat party fixer, he of the infamous
Russian dossier. How he is getting involved. What is their defense for What
is their argument for defending people who put commercial addresses clearly against the law in
Nevada as their principal address. Yeah, it's a cry wolf exercise. He
does this all over the country. He spools up these progressive AstroTurf organizations and
they follow a legal brief which they've done in our case, which we have
to respond to. I think we're responding today that says, oh, if
you listen to these evil conservatives, there will be eligible people improperly removed from
the roles. Nonsense. There is nobody that we have tagged with a bogus
address in Nevada that lives at this address. We've been to all of the
locations. It's not some data exercise we see sitting at a computer in Chicago.
We've actually boots on the ground, visited and looked for the voter and
they don't exist. So you know, Mark Elias is in the business of
defending the riches of a disastrous election system with universal vote by mail that are
sending ballots automatically to thousands of bogus addresses, thousands, and apparently it's in
the business of defending lawlessness, which you are in the business of fighting against.
Of course at the foundation. This is something that is not just happening
in Nevada. I say that something is the awful and very dirty voter roles.
You're fighting these battles across the country. Let's talk about where voter rolls
are a big problem, particularly as we've just months before the twenty twenty four
election. Yeah, Pennsylvania, Michigan are the real ones. I mean,
look, we've got cases in the last year from Alaska to Maine. We
just beat Maine on a transparracy issue involving elections at their radical Secretary state Sheena
Bello's appeal to the first circuit and she lost. We won. And so
there's all over the country. I mean even in Louisiana we have cases.
We have cases I think like fifteen active states, Minnesota, Wisconsin, but
Michigan and Pennsylvania. First of all, Michigan. Michigan has had twenty seven
thousand dead voters on the active roles. Some have been dead for decades,
and we found this through hard work visiting grave sites, verifying the death,
talking to family members. That's the other thing is family members come to us
and say, we keep getting ballots from my uncle who died two decades ago.
So we sued Joscelyn Benson, the Secretary of State, and that case
was dismissed in a very novel area of federal law under the NVIRA. In
other words, it's never been ruled on what it means in thirty years since
passage of motor voter We're now at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals going to
argue the case that you need to have clean voter rules. This has never
been argued before. This case. It's called Public Intertleo Foundation versus Benson,
and it's about thousands, tens of thousands of dead voters that Jocelyn Benson won't
remove. The next case is Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has been allowing non citizens to
register for twenty years as part of a glitch in their pen Dot motor voter
system, and we discovered this about seven years ago. We sued to get
the records of what they're doing about it. We won in federal court.
In the lower court it's called summary judgment, and Pennsylvania doesn't want to turn
over the record, so they've appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals,
which is a federal appeals court in Philly, and we're fighting them there.
And so these election officials in places like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada that weren't
court against are not on the side of election integrity. They are on the
side of a broken system in defending the status quo. So much for free,
fair and open elections. I think the biggest issue that your organization faces,
in fact, let's call it what it is, but this country faces,
is the transparency problem. You've encountered, as you just noted, you've
encountered this just about everywhere you go, from Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada,
and myriad other legal actions that you're involved in. No wonder so few people
have so little faith in the integrity of our elections, Right, Yeah,
I got to toot our own horn a bit. We're real pioneers on the
election transparency. We started this about a decade ago, where we use provisions
of federal law that basically were never used, these public records provisions. The
left used them occasionally, but we're the first conservative group to go in and
bring cases in federal court demanding records under this federal law. It's not foya.
Whenever somebody talks about foya, I chuckle. That's like a state and
it's like I call it a yugo. Some people know to ugo is is
a u goo. What I'm talking about is a Lamborghini. We use a
federal statute called Section eight of the NVRA. It's a Lamborghini to get transparency.
And we have defeated and gotten fee awards and hundreds of thousands of dollars.
So if you get a notice letter from us, don't play because we
know how to win these cases. We've gotten huge fee awards against Harris County,
Texas, Pennsylvania, Maine. We win cases to get records, and
so that's how we're cracking open transparency issues. I still see some people using
state foya when it comes to elections. I'm like, you got to be
kidding me, Like that is so outdated. There's powerful tools in the federal
law to get transparency. I think the modern version of that reference would be
the electric vehicle versus the gas powered Lamborghini. But You're absolutely right, and
it brings to mind a case the PILF is involved in in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
It's a huge transparency issue and it certainly involves the Voter Rights Act and
how this is being the NVRA is being misapplied in these states. It's funny
you were able to get some records. We wrote a story about this at
the Federalist. But I thought was most interesting because I know the player is
involved. But when you had told the the people at the Wisconsin Elections Commission,
you've got to turn over this information. You have this snide and snarky
remark from the elections top elections official. Who's really right now? A squadter
in that position. The Senate actually voted to remove her from the position.
They're fighting a big legal battle to keep her in. The left is in
Wisconsin. But she had said in this reply to her pals at her fellow
bureaucrats at WECK, you know who's going to break it to them that we
have, you know, full coverage under the Voter Rights Act. That's really
the core of this issue, is it not. Yeah, so you're on
top of this. So guys, there's forty four states that have to be
transparent. Six of them don't. They got exemptions in nineteen ninety three from
the transparency part of the NBRA. It happens that three of them are swing
states New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, and they got an exemption thirty
years ago because they had same day registration, and because they had same day
registration, they didn't have to comply with anything else in the NVRA, like
keeping clean voter rolls or being transparent. Well, thirty years is a long
time, and now twenty two other states have same day exempt you know,
same day registration, but they're not exempted from the NVRA obligations. So we
set up, like you said, a challenge to these exemptions in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and we asked Megan Wolf is their name? We asked her for
these records and she hit reply to all too fast and got very snarky and
said, who wants to break the news that we're not covered by NVRA.
Of course we knew, We knew, as like, oh yeah, we're
that big of idiots, like we wouldn't know this. This is all an
effort. We're going to test whether or not. Remember states joined the Union
to be treated equally in seventeen eighty seven and every state thereafter. They didn't
think there were going to be junior states and senior states. And so the
fact that Wisconsin and Minnesota don't have to comply with the transparency and list maintenance
obligations of the NVRA is no longer congruent, proportional, or proper in the
intervening thirty years. Maybe one time it was constitutional, but we argue that
times have changed. You can't treat states unequally. I think this is a
very compelling legal argument. I think it's an extremely important lawsuit. I think
with possible ramifications, you know, going on down the road, the impacts,
at least to me, are very clear. J. Christian Adams as
President and General Counsel of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, public interest law firm
dedicated to election integrity, and that is exactly what we are talking about today.
It's interesting to me, PILF and there are some others that come to
mind, you know. I there is so much rancor surrounding this issue,
of course, and much of it, if not most of it, is
driven by the left. But give credit where credit is due. They've been
extremely good and extremely effective at law fair. It seems to me we only
have a handful of really good fighters in this area, and unfortunately, we
have too many Republicans and Conservatives in this country who just give in because they
don't want to be labeled election deniers. PILF doesn't have that problem. You
guys go to fight. You've been among the most successful on the election integrity
law fair front in America today. Yeah, I look, I share our
theory on this and our institutional philosophy. You can't go to court with the
judge thinking that you're crazies. Okay. You can't bring every single claim you
can think of. You have to be laser focused. You have to think
up winning cases. You can't just throw everything against the wall and see what
sticks, because that's when you get sanctioned as a lawyer. That's when you
lose cases over and over again. I'm not going to name any names.
They are not in business anymore. But there are people back in twenty twenty
that literally lost everything they brought, and it damaged the playing field for everybody
else. It damaged the playing field for our friends at Judicial Watch, It
damaged the playing field for our friends at America First Policy Institute, the people
who are doing good work got hurt by the people doing bad work. And
I call out people all the time on this. I'm like, stop bringing
garbage. You can't just bring everything. You got to bring good stuff.
Now, you guys have brought some excell and stuff and it shows in the
record your success that you've had, and that success is so critical. How
much of what you are battling against, like an attorney, a good attorney,
I think I know the answer to this question already, But how much
of the lawsuits, the research on that front that you're doing is going to
play a critical role in November's election? You know, we see the polling
we see on the presidential side of thing things. Former President Donald Trump has
you know, in some cases a commanding lead in particularly the swing states.
But polls don't make presidents. Ballots make presidents. How much of what the
left is doing in law, fair and in practice an election administration will have
an impact on the twenty twenty four election is doing certainly is now. Remember
we're a five to one C three charity, so we aren't a partisan group.
We can't say, oh, we're doing this hell President Trump, because
that's we're doing this to restore the rule of law. Sure, but you
know cases like Pennsylvania. I bring Pennsylvania up in the aliens voting that we
found and discovered and I think led to it getting stopped, is now showing
up as something that's going to influence a twenty four election because there's no longer
tens of thousands of aliens getting registered in Florida the way they had been with
an open invitation. That's just one. It's important to realize that there's no
silver bullet case. This is a grind. You have to bring what seems
like a granular lawsuit in order to eventually affect the big thing. Some people
who bring the big let's solve it all lawsuits, they always lose. You
can't. You can't change the world in a lawsuit. So you've got to
fight where there's a fight to be fought. And you know, the Pennsylvania
alien voting case is one. The fact that Pittsburgh was registering people seven times
were Sean slay people we found on the voter rolls, literally with seven registrations.
I'm not making that number up. Seven times simultaneously. This guy was
registered. Judith Presto voted after she died. We found that her husband got
arrested. Over and over and over again. We're fighting the granular fight to
you know, help Ron De Santis with his criminal prosecutions down there. You
know, it's not one big silver bullet. It's a day in, day
out grind. So let's focus on an issue that you brought up in particular,
how significant is the non citizen threat you hear from the left all the
time? You know, the Save Act is dealing with that. Save Act
obviously an important piece of legislation, but let's be realistic about it. It's
not going to go anywhere with Democrats in charge of the Senate. But how
significant is the potential that non citizens voting in our elections could have an impact
on our elections? Well, they do already. And look, this is
something the left wants to disappear from the public narrative. I testified to Congress
on this, I think three weeks ago, to the House Administration Committee,
and the congresswoman from California entered into an alternative universe of personal attacks because they
don't anybody to talk about this their names torres. Look, we have so
many reports of the public interslegal foundation that we have published the government documents in
Pennsylvania. For example, it's called Stealing the Vote. Is the name.
The name of the report is called Stealing the Vote. Where we present the
letters that these aliens are writing saying, please take me off the voter rolls.
I got registered accidentally. I didn't want to be registered. Someone else
registered me. I'm not a citizen, and then we show their voting histories.
Okay. We have reports called Garden State, Gotcha about New Jersey.
We have safe Spaces about sanctuary cities. We have a report about North Carolina
where we collected data of non citizens voting and how they got on the rules.
This is stuff political science professors at Harvard should be studying, not a
bunch of lawyers at the Public Interest Legal Foundation. This is a serious national
problem about our broken system. And if I were to look at what the
political science departments of the top Ivy League schools are studying instead, you understand
what's wrong with Ivy League schools at that point. And so we are documenting
the problem with government records that you can go get at our web page.
Now you ask the question how big is it, Well, I'd sure like
to have Pennsylvania turnover all the records were in court to get because I can
tell you the exact number of aliens who register in Pennsylvania, how many of
them voted in elections, which is usually almost always, and what did they
do to fix the problem. We're on this case, we're arguing it,
like I said, at the third Circuit, and once we get those records,
we'll have much more definitive information. But it shows you how hard they
fight to hide the truth. But the truth is out there. Speaking of
hiding the truth, there is hiding the truth and then silencing the people who
are bringing you the truth. We know that that is a significant part of
election interference in America today. The Federalist has extensively reported on that coming from
our federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, which is kind of
the focus point of the so called disinformation campaign, which is really nothing more
than a silencing act against those who rightly criticize election integrity in America. Has
PILF been Obviously, you've not been silenced. You've been quite successful and you
continue to do the work. But do you live under that threat as an
organization taking on the powers that be? Now? You know what I long
ago became not worried about fear right like I think Rush Limbaugh had a great
line he said, the most liberating moment is when you no longer stop caring
about what other people think. And I don't care about criticism from the Washington
Post and so forth, so I and certainly not from the government. Holy
moly, I don't think there was anybody out there who was more aggressive toward
Eric Holder than I was from twenty ten, you know, to when he
stopped being ag So you know, if I'm if I'm willing to take on
Eric Holder, I'm not too worried about some criticism. Now you're referring to
SISA Center for something security. It's inside DHA. That's right. This was
set up in the either end of Obama or very beginning of Trump. And
I got to tell you it should have been it should have been euthanized in
its early life, but it was not. It was allowed by Chris Krebs,
a DHS official, and the Trump administration to survive and then thrive and
bulk up. And this is a lesson for the future that you cannot allow
the deep state to create nodes of pushback. And that's exactly what Sissil was.
I was on the Presidential Advisory Commission for Election Integrity pointed by President Trump.
The left went crazy at this commission. That's why they sued it out
of existence. But the point is SIS has survived and we didn't. That
showed the imbalance. And both of these were part of that administration and one
should have been snuffed out and the other one should have been promoted that the
exact opposite have. Yeah, I mean, I guess I'm curious to know
that if former President Trump is re elected. If you know, he has
positioned himself as a swamp fighter, but some of the swampiest creatures existed under
his administration. I know he's publicly said he's not happy about that, but
it would be interesting to see just what happens to assistsa moving forward. And
it's not the criticism. I mean, we're all adults here. We can
handle the criticism. And lord knows, your organization and our organization has received
plenty of it for going up against the big power players in the deep state.
What I'm talking about is silenced and there are all kinds of ways of
being silenced and threatened. Have you had issues, for instance, with your
website. You know, the sorts of games that big tech has played along
side the sisters of the world to try to, you know, shut down
your voice. Yeah, you know what, that's a good question, and
I do remember. I do remember some you know a lot of times we'll
post something and Twitter will play or whatever it is now, we'll play games
and like, don't you want to read the story first? Or YouTube was
throttling our stuff at one point. Of course, Wikipedia is just a mouthpiece
for the institutional left, so you eventually stop worrying about them. You know,
it is clear that the left despises anybody who's doing good work in this
area. They never want to partner, They never want to be reasonable,
They always want to lie. You just get used to it, and you
just do your work and win your fights and speak your mind and don't worry
about what the enemy thinks. What is the biggest threat, the biggest single
threat? And I know you deal with multiple threat that's on a daily basis,
But the biggest threat facing our elections today, well, I got to
start with Nevada. I mean, if you were to design a system deliberately
to create the incorrect outcomes based on chaos you would have Nevada statutory system.
It is the worst system of election in the entire United States. It is
an automatic universal mail election with completely corrupted voter roles, with no oversight or
effort to fix the problem that is Nevada. And you know, look,
Nevada is not the most populated state in the country. But right now there's
somebody in the US Senate not named Adam Laxall, and Adam Laxall should be
the United States Senator from Nevada. And because Nevada has a messed up system,
you have somebody other than Adam Laxhelt in the US Senate. So look,
well that's a big threat. I'll tell you the other one. The
other one is the polarization in the country where you have blue state election administrators
like Joscelyn Benson and Sheena Bellows in Maine, and the and the name who
escapes me from Colorado, who's another radical leftist. I can't believe. I
can't remember her name. If thought they head. They just don't care about
the issues that your listeners care about. They hate your listeners, they don't
like them, and they want them to be ground into dust. As far
as their political influence, and that's what scares me. Is a big threat
is ideological election of administrators who are willing to transform the country fundamentally. How
we give power to people. Yeah, there is no common ground with lawlessness,
and I think I hope we've learned those lessons over the last four plus
years in this country. That's and it goes back farther than that, I
know, but and hyper focused moving over again over the last four plus years.
Final question for you, what is it that you ultimately hope to accomplish
in the election integrity work that you are doing. Look, if I could
pick one thing, it would be when lawless actors, whether it's a state
election administrator like Sena Bellows and May who doesn't follow the NVRA transparency provisions,
or some joker in a county, would lawless election officials get a letter from
us or one of our allies. I want the law to be following.
If we can get to a place where the lawless fear the law abiding,
that's where I want to go. I wish you the best of luck on
that front. You've been very successful in accomplishing that mission on a number of
turns, but you know there have been challenges as well well, and that's
why you're still engaged in the fight. I appreciate you taking the time today
and in joining us in the good work that you are doing at PILF.
Thank you for having me. Absolutely thanks to my guest today. I'm Jay
Christian Adams, President and General Counsel of the Public Interest Legal Foundation. 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. Until then,
stay lovers of freedom and anxious for the fray