Speaker 1: And we are back with another edition of the Federalist
Speaker 1: Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, Senior Elections correspondent at the
Speaker 1: Federalist and your experience shirpa on today's quest for Knowledge.
Speaker 1: As always, you can email the show at radio at
Speaker 1: the Federalist dot com, follow us on exit FDRLST, make
Speaker 1: sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast, and of
Speaker 1: course to the premium version of our website as well.
Speaker 1: Our guest today is Jay Christian Adams, President and General
Speaker 1: Counsel for the Public Interest Legal Foundation, and we talk
Speaker 1: about the critical topic of election integrity and the battles
Speaker 1: ahead in this critical midterm election year. Christian, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for it for joining us in this edition
Speaker 1: at the Federalist Radio Hour.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for having me. Great to be here.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, we have a lot of ground to cover. As
Speaker 1: they used to say in the Smoky and the Bandits song,
Speaker 1: We've got a long way to go, but a short
Speaker 1: time to get there, or something like that. We're beginning
Speaker 1: our conversation today with the big story, a Supreme Court
Speaker 1: decision that I think will have a significant effect moving forward.
Speaker 1: It addresses standing of political candidates. The Supreme Court ruling
Speaker 1: on that case. As we speak, I was wondering if
Speaker 1: we could delve into that and what that will all
Speaker 1: mean moving forward.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So it's the Boss case was decided by the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court effectively, I think four to two to two.
Speaker 3: And the big issue there that's important is who can
Speaker 3: sue for violations of election law.
Speaker 2: Good news.
Speaker 3: There's good news and bad news, just so we can
Speaker 3: do both. The good news is this expands the universe
Speaker 3: of people who can bring a lawsuit to candidates. In
Speaker 3: other words, if you're running for Congress and an election
Speaker 3: law is being broken, then you can sue. I get that.
Speaker 3: That's a good thing that the Supreme Court ruled the
Speaker 3: way it did and said candidates can sue. What's a
Speaker 3: little important to understand on the other side of the
Speaker 3: ledger is this probably we need a lot more than
Speaker 3: just candidates having the right to sue.
Speaker 2: The public.
Speaker 3: Interlegal Foundation files lawsuits. We filed a lawsuit exactly like
Speaker 3: this case actually in North Dakota challenging their acceptance of
Speaker 3: mail balance late and we lost on standing just like
Speaker 3: Judicial Watch did in Illinois. On today's case, and ours
Speaker 3: is not a candidate. It was essentially an election official.
Speaker 3: So the standing issue at is a big deal. It
Speaker 3: needs to go further. Today was a good step in
Speaker 3: the right.
Speaker 1: To It is a huge issue. And I'm thinking too,
Speaker 1: it wasn't settled today, but there were lawsuits in the
Speaker 1: last election cycle about state senators or lawmakers having standing
Speaker 1: in these issues, and we saw a pretty famous Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: case stalled out on that front. Where do you think
Speaker 1: that is heading for these others like lawmakers who file
Speaker 1: lawsuits in these election cases.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well that's what the Supreme Court resolved.
Speaker 3: It's settled now in the Boss case bost by the
Speaker 3: way that a candidate would have standing. That's what the
Speaker 3: big opinion was the Supreme Court. Now, it was a
Speaker 3: fractured opinion. Amy Cony, Barrett and Kagan disagreed with it
Speaker 3: and said, yes, they're standing for this particular person, but
Speaker 3: it's because they're wasting and spending money after.
Speaker 2: The election to make sure the law was followed to
Speaker 2: you know.
Speaker 3: Send observers and that kind of So they kind of
Speaker 3: had dollar bill standing in the concurrence, and of course
Speaker 3: two justices dissented said there is no standing. You're going
Speaker 3: to open up the floodgates to crazy people like the
Speaker 3: normal stuff.
Speaker 2: And so it was essentially a four too two opinion.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No, I think I didn't ask that question correctly.
Speaker 1: I know that the candidates now have standing according to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. But in the last elections, and we've
Speaker 1: seen this before, legislatures have sued collectively or many members
Speaker 1: of a state legislature have sued in an election dispute,
Speaker 1: and particularly election integrity questions. In a case in Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: comes to mind, where you had a federal judge there
Speaker 1: say I'm sorry, we rely on these previous cases to
Speaker 1: assert that legislation, legislators, the legislature does not have standing
Speaker 1: in the these cases because of you know, a lot
Speaker 1: of different things. I don't think this case dealt with that.
Speaker 1: Where do you think that might be heading based on
Speaker 1: and perhaps informed by this Supreme Court case?
Speaker 3: Yeah, terrific question. My apologies. I'd assumed in your question
Speaker 3: the legislators were on the ballot, right, and that's the difference.
Speaker 2: So you're exactly right.
Speaker 3: This case does not say legislators have standing simply because
Speaker 3: they're legislators. If they were candidates, they would have standing.
Speaker 3: But if there's simply legislators who aren't on the ballot
Speaker 3: that is unchanged.
Speaker 1: All right, gotcha? And again the Supreme Court kind of
Speaker 1: paused on that. One would say, maybe bulk at that
Speaker 1: and we'll see perhaps down the road. Now we are
Speaker 1: in another critical It sounds hyperbolic to say that every
Speaker 1: election cycle is critical. If you look at it from
Speaker 1: the point of view of do you want to save
Speaker 1: this republic? That's pretty critical. So all of that said,
Speaker 1: what do you see at PILF as being the biggest
Speaker 1: election integrity issues as we head into the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: six mid term election year.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I got to tell you it's related to the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court case, which this case didn't reach the bigger issue.
Speaker 3: It only reached the small issue of whether Cannon set standing,
Speaker 3: And that's the federal law that requires male ballots or
Speaker 3: ballots to be received by election day. That's the underlying
Speaker 3: litigation and boss that was not touched by the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: And I think that late arriving ballots that cause late
Speaker 3: announcements of winners is the single most destabilizing component of
Speaker 3: American elections. It's destabilizing to the country. I think it
Speaker 3: creates doubt, it invites mischief, and that issue is going
Speaker 3: Supreme Court in another case that will hopefully be resolved
Speaker 3: well before election day.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that is critical. I know that you folks have
Speaker 1: been dealing with this for a long time. Ask some
Speaker 1: of the candidates in Nevada how critical that was. There's
Speaker 1: a gentleman who ran for Senate a few years back
Speaker 1: who can tell you all about that. But it's not
Speaker 1: just there, it's California, it's in so many different states.
Speaker 1: Where do you think that case will end up given
Speaker 1: what you've seen so far.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a great question, and it's a statutory text question.
Speaker 3: The question is does federal law require all ballots to
Speaker 3: be in by election day? That's the issue before the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court, and the statute says election day they have
Speaker 3: to be cast by election day.
Speaker 2: And so it's going to turn on what the meaning
Speaker 2: of cast is.
Speaker 3: And I think that cast means you're gets dropped in
Speaker 3: the official basket.
Speaker 2: It doesn't mean it gets dropped in the mailbox, are
Speaker 2: given to.
Speaker 3: Some contractor who comes to your front porch and takes
Speaker 3: the mail away.
Speaker 2: And so I think that it's huge.
Speaker 3: I think it's probably going to come out the right way,
Speaker 3: but I certainly won't want to bet put all my chips.
Speaker 2: In the center of the table.
Speaker 1: At the same time, we have to think about the
Speaker 1: dirty voter rolls out there. That's something the Public Interest
Speaker 1: Legal Foundation has thought a lot about over the years.
Speaker 1: You've got a lot of cases in motion right now.
Speaker 1: We have seen some really awfully dirty voter rolls and
Speaker 1: the fruits of those voter rules. Of course in the
Speaker 1: last couple of years. In particular, where does that stand
Speaker 1: and where do your legal actions stand on that front?
Speaker 3: Well, I got some bad news there the Six Circuit
Speaker 3: Court of Appeals in the case we brought against Joscelyn
Speaker 3: Benson in Michigan, we're having twenty five thousand dead people
Speaker 3: on the active voter rolls, which is barely subject to dispute.
Speaker 3: It's lock solid evidence. The Sixth Circuits said, Hey, states
Speaker 3: don't really have to be effective in how they clean
Speaker 3: the roles. They just have to try to. And we're like, Nope,
Speaker 3: that's not what the law says. And this we have
Speaker 3: a petition with the US Supreme Court. If the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court doesn't take the case, guys, there is a court
Speaker 3: decision by the Six Circuit Court.
Speaker 2: Of Appeals that says states really.
Speaker 3: Don't have an obligation to keep clean voter rolls, and
Speaker 3: so this is a huge issue. I think some Republican
Speaker 3: Party groups helped us, but we didn't get enough. We
Speaker 3: didn't get it much in the way of broad energy
Speaker 3: on this. Nobody from Michigan. Nobody, And it's sort of
Speaker 3: sort of discouraging because this is the ballgame whether we're
Speaker 3: going to have clean voter roles or not.
Speaker 1: Why is that? Why didn't you get that energetic response?
Speaker 1: I mean, is really where the rubber meets the road
Speaker 1: in terms of election integrity?
Speaker 2: I don't know, I really don't.
Speaker 3: Maybe that's something you can do a show on and
Speaker 3: ask the people who should have But it's discouraging. Look,
Speaker 3: all we can do is try as hard as we can.
Speaker 3: We litigated this. We went to the grave sites of
Speaker 3: the voters. We visited them in the graveyard with video.
Speaker 3: You can go to Public Interest Legal Foundation and google
Speaker 3: Michigan video graveyard.
Speaker 2: We actually went to the site.
Speaker 3: Some of these people have been dead since the nineties
Speaker 3: and they're still in the active voter rolls.
Speaker 1: Well, what is the argument from Joscelyn Benson. I'm again,
Speaker 1: like a mediocre attorney. I know the answer to this,
Speaker 1: But what is the answer from the Joscelyn Benson's of
Speaker 1: the world, who, by the way, want to move from
Speaker 1: Secretary of State to be the next governor of Michigan.
Speaker 1: Keep that scary thought in mind, But how do they
Speaker 1: justify these dirty voter rolls?
Speaker 3: So there's two ways they do. The first is the
Speaker 3: proportionality way. They say, hey, this is only twenty five
Speaker 3: thousand dead people on the active roles out of six millions,
Speaker 3: so we're and we removed one hundred and fifty thousand
Speaker 3: dead people last year, so we're making a reasonable effort
Speaker 3: to keep the roles clean.
Speaker 1: Go away.
Speaker 3: That's the first argument. It's a tiny fraction of the problem,
Speaker 3: and they removed a bunch of people. The second argument
Speaker 3: they're making is the law doesn't require them to be effective.
Speaker 3: It just requires them to give it the old college
Speaker 3: try and if they fail, oh well they're not liable.
Speaker 3: And so those are the two arguments. And you could
Speaker 3: see how if these two arguments got legs, which they're getting,
Speaker 3: it's going to affect the entire country, not just Michigan.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no doubt about it, because every state that doesn't
Speaker 1: value election integrity and quite frankly, Let's be honest here.
Speaker 1: They want to use dirty voter rolls to the advantage
Speaker 1: of their political favorites. They're going to not only can
Speaker 1: you need to do this, but they're going to, you know,
Speaker 1: expand the issue, and that becomes very critical in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six. So I ask you that in this vein,
Speaker 1: do you believe that we are going to see without
Speaker 1: COVID But who knows the kind of nonsense that we
Speaker 1: saw in twenty twenty because the left sure seems desperate
Speaker 1: to me.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Look, the good news is I don't think we're
Speaker 3: ever going to see anything like we did in twenty twenty.
Speaker 3: We didn't see it in twenty twenty four, we didn't
Speaker 3: see it in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 2: Twenty twenty is going to go down.
Speaker 3: In history as the year the guardrails were taken down
Speaker 3: and all of the nonsense that occurred in violating state laws,
Speaker 3: suspending state laws. You know, sometimes courts signed off on that.
Speaker 3: But the point is, I don't think we're going to
Speaker 3: see that again. The Left pulled off and inside right
Speaker 3: that year, and too much effort has gone into making
Speaker 3: sure it never happens again.
Speaker 1: What is the status of the save Act that certainly
Speaker 1: ties into the voter roles. And yeah, the Save Act.
Speaker 1: You know, the idea that the vast majority of Americans
Speaker 1: agree with is that you have to be a US
Speaker 1: citizen to vote in a US election, and it requires
Speaker 1: you know, documented proof of that fact. Is it has
Speaker 1: passed in the House. It has been stalled in the Senate.
Speaker 1: Do you know why and what is the status of
Speaker 1: the Save Act right now as we get closer and
Speaker 1: closer to voting in this midterm.
Speaker 3: Well, my understanding is it just doesn't have the votes
Speaker 3: in the Senate, that it just doesn't have the votes
Speaker 3: necessary to pass. And so, you know, I'm not close
Speaker 3: enough to Senate issues on this that I can tell
Speaker 3: you why that is. But at least my understanding is
Speaker 3: it's just a game of math.
Speaker 1: I am curious though, I've heard that there are some
Speaker 1: Republicans who do not support this basic constitutional issue, this
Speaker 1: basic election integrity issue, and that baffles me as well.
Speaker 4: Well. Washington's housing fixes backfire. The watch Doot on Wall
Speaker 4: Street podcast with Chris Markowski. Every day, Chris helps unpack
Speaker 4: the connection between politics and the economy and how it
Speaker 4: affects your wallet. Trump plans on purchasing billions and mortgage
Speaker 4: backed securities, as well as allowing people to use retirement
Speaker 4: to make down payments. Does adding more cash bring down
Speaker 4: the price or at fuel to the fire. Whether it's
Speaker 4: happening in DC or down on Wall Street, it's affecting
Speaker 4: you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 4: Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Speaker 4: Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: What are the other big issues that you will be
Speaker 1: fighting in court this year? I know you have sent
Speaker 1: out a number of warning letters and letters too. Your
Speaker 1: lead researcher, Logan Churchill has written plenty of these saying hey,
Speaker 1: we can help you with this. A secretary of state
Speaker 1: elect state election official, we can get you in compliance
Speaker 1: with election law election integrity. What kind of issues are
Speaker 1: you you're delving into.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so one is we're dealing with the race base
Speaker 3: for districting in California. We have a lawsuit against California
Speaker 3: there where the new congressional maps are jerry rigging the
Speaker 3: system to create race districts. We're also looking at a
Speaker 3: secret ballot in Texas. We have a lawsuit being argued
Speaker 3: this week there as to whether you have a right
Speaker 3: to actually have a secret ballot. I know that sounds shocking,
Speaker 3: but it hangs in the balance. And then there's the
Speaker 3: whole voter roll problem around the country. We continue to
Speaker 3: spend money and time to find dead people, people who
Speaker 3: moved away in the voter roles and make the data
Speaker 3: available to election officials. It's it's something that is fixable,
Speaker 3: and it's something that everybody should agree needs to be improved.
Speaker 1: Where does that California issue stand? And I asked that
Speaker 1: in the main, there are a lot of liberal states
Speaker 1: looking to you know, rig their maps so that they
Speaker 1: can they can grab more congressional seats. Where does your
Speaker 1: lawsuits stand? Where does the issue stand? In general?
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's it's in the hands of a federal court,
Speaker 3: three judge panel. Actually, when you do a challenge like this,
Speaker 3: you get three federal judges and.
Speaker 2: You know where it stands.
Speaker 3: As like, we're in the middle of combat with litigation
Speaker 3: with California, and hopefully, you know, we get some good
Speaker 3: news from the Supreme Court on another redistricting case shorty
Speaker 3: called Louisiana versus Cala, which has a brief in there,
Speaker 3: and hopefully redistricting law moves in a better direction this
Speaker 3: calendar year.
Speaker 2: You bet.
Speaker 1: Our guest today is Jay Christian Adams, President and General
Speaker 1: counsel for the Public Interest Legal Foundation, talking election integrity,
Speaker 1: all the battles ahead in this critical midterm election year.
Speaker 1: Will A lot has changed since the election of twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: We are seeing citizen only voting laws in place or
Speaker 1: amendments to constitutions, a growing movement on that front. Are
Speaker 1: we going to see the movement at least in these
Speaker 1: blue states that didn't change these issues? Are we going
Speaker 1: to see a bigger movement with liberal election offices working
Speaker 1: with far left non profits so to speak, so called
Speaker 1: nonpartisan election groups.
Speaker 3: Yeah, great question, And two things of note. First of all,
Speaker 3: a PILF has been doing a deep dive into the
Speaker 3: personnel in a very blue state's election offices, and we've
Speaker 3: been harvesting resumes and we will eventually have a more
Speaker 3: comprehensive report, but I can tell you from a preliminary standpoint,
Speaker 3: it really makes it hard to have a lot of
Speaker 3: confidence in these election offices while we're seeing. The other
Speaker 3: thing that's happening is states are passing these mini voting
Speaker 3: rights acts like New York did, Virginia did, California did
Speaker 3: to radicalize election law in these states, so like lock
Speaker 3: it down, like this is never changing, We're always going
Speaker 3: to be hyper progressive, crazy and at a challenge to
Speaker 3: Some of these voting rights acts on stay level really
Speaker 3: need to be made and we look forward to doing that.
Speaker 1: Well, let's go into detail on some of those, because
Speaker 1: what these politicians and these activist groups are calling voter
Speaker 1: rights acts is just a lot of times and end
Speaker 1: around to you know, basic election integrity rules, basic integrity laws.
Speaker 1: What are they trying to do in some of these states.
Speaker 3: Well, two things they do, of note they do a
Speaker 3: lot more than that, but I'll just give you two.
Speaker 3: One is they make race the center of state election law.
Speaker 2: In other words, you can bring.
Speaker 3: These cases to demand race based districts like I want
Speaker 3: a black district for Congress, I want to well Congress
Speaker 3: and even down to school board, and they dispense with
Speaker 3: the federal rule. They get rid of the federal rule,
Speaker 3: which is really hard to satisfy. It's a really complicated
Speaker 3: way to do it, and they make it really super easy.
Speaker 3: So what happens is you create all these race based
Speaker 3: districts under state law. That's the first thing The second
Speaker 3: thing they do is they give state attorneys general, the
Speaker 3: bureaucrats in the state, basically the oversight power to review
Speaker 3: everything that the local jurisdictions do about elections. You know,
Speaker 3: if they want to change the time and place of
Speaker 3: the office being open, changing a polling place, everything that
Speaker 3: goes into state elections. These bureaucrats in Albany, Sacramento, they
Speaker 3: get to veto at all, and that allows manipulation by
Speaker 3: state employees in the process.
Speaker 1: Well, now, wait a minute, I thought liberals Democrats weren't
Speaker 1: all that keen on states' rights. It seemed like it.
Speaker 1: For a long time. It was always federal central authority.
Speaker 1: What changed there?
Speaker 3: Well, look, they know that in places like New York
Speaker 3: and Massachusetts and California and Minnesota, they love state power
Speaker 3: because they're always.
Speaker 2: Going to be in power.
Speaker 3: Right Maryland, These are places where progressive is a culture
Speaker 3: and there's no there's no competing political ideology. It's a
Speaker 3: one party state, and so why not be in favor
Speaker 3: of state power when you got the power.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Indeed, here's the headline from the Associated Press as we
Speaker 1: talk today. Democrats will spend millions to shift voter registration
Speaker 1: strategy ahead of the midterm elections, kind of what we
Speaker 1: were talking about before. The Democratic National Committee will spend
Speaker 1: millions of dollars to cement control of voter registration efforts
Speaker 1: that have traditionally been entrusted to nonprofit advocacy groups and
Speaker 1: individual political campaigns, a shift that party leaders hope will
Speaker 1: increase their chances. What do you think about all of that?
Speaker 3: Yeah, Look, this has been going on in small measure
Speaker 3: all around the country. I mean, one example, the fight
Speaker 3: was Texas where pardon these people went out to do
Speaker 3: voter registration and they were putting on bad registrations, like
Speaker 3: the fake registrations, and Texas passed the law that said,
Speaker 3: if you want to sign people up to vote, you
Speaker 3: have to go through training, you have to show you
Speaker 3: know the law. And of course what happens next, Texas
Speaker 3: got sued over this law like hey, this is suppression.
Speaker 3: Well the Planner's lost, Texas won. But the same fight
Speaker 3: is taking place around the country where the registration process
Speaker 3: has basically been outsourced to activist groups.
Speaker 1: And we've gone down this road before, where you know,
Speaker 1: you have activist groups trying to you know, trying to
Speaker 1: register voters, trying to register the kind of voter they
Speaker 1: want to turn out. But at one point, of course,
Speaker 1: they were deeply embedded in some of our election offices.
Speaker 1: You know, we saw that certainly in twenty twenty where
Speaker 1: you had a Democrat Party operative in Wisconsin working inside
Speaker 1: Green Bay Office election office there and working alongside with
Speaker 1: the largest blue cities. Do you see that happening again?
Speaker 1: I know there have been some changes in the laws
Speaker 1: on that front.
Speaker 2: Oh for sure.
Speaker 3: I mean, look, some of these election offices in Richmond,
Speaker 3: or at least they were, are populated by volunteers parachuted
Speaker 3: in from activists left as five to one C three
Speaker 3: groups to work inside the election offices.
Speaker 2: This is not a shocker.
Speaker 3: This is the standard operating procedure in a bunch of
Speaker 3: state capitals around the country. And I know people were shocked, like, well,
Speaker 3: who would ever do that for free? Well, they do
Speaker 3: it for free. They parachute people in.
Speaker 1: That leads us to ballot harvesting. You know has dealt
Speaker 1: with this in the past. How big a role will
Speaker 1: ballot harvesting play in the twenty twenty six midterms.
Speaker 3: Well, it depends on which state. A lot of states
Speaker 3: have curtailed it. A lot of states it's a culture.
Speaker 3: Some states have made changes, like Mississippi has it is
Speaker 3: less of a problem than it was in the past.
Speaker 1: You're hearing a lot, interestingly from liberals from the Democrat
Speaker 1: Party about twenty twenty six and how the election might
Speaker 1: not just be fair because you have Donald Trump in office.
Speaker 1: You know, according to the left, he's the biggest threat
Speaker 1: to democracy out there. And they're certainly using terms like
Speaker 1: fascist and what have you. You know, they're talking about
Speaker 1: the R word here, Christian. They're saying, we're really worried
Speaker 1: that the twenty twenty six mid terms could be rigged
Speaker 1: by Trump and Republicans. Isn't that quite a change from
Speaker 1: when there were a lot of folks, including yourself, who
Speaker 1: raised questions about certainly the many irregularities of twenty twenty Yeah.
Speaker 3: I really sincerely hope as we move forward as a
Speaker 3: country that these sorts of claims become very out of fashion.
Speaker 3: It's like a slinky or a I don't know. I
Speaker 3: want to do some cultural fun here, like stuff that's
Speaker 3: no longer popular, like some of the records I have
Speaker 3: at home, like the Bay City Rollers.
Speaker 1: S A t U R Day, my friend right right.
Speaker 3: Right, right, right, right, The point is that I'm looking
Speaker 3: forward to the day that the confidence in the system
Speaker 3: is restored, and you know that the pendulum doesn't swing
Speaker 3: back and forth between one and the other.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that has changed. I think the polling
Speaker 1: shows it that there still is a good deal of
Speaker 1: distrust in the system. But people feel a lot better
Speaker 1: today than they did a few years back, and understandably so.
Speaker 1: How much does Congress have Let me ask it straight here,
Speaker 1: how much culpability does Congress have in you? The failure
Speaker 1: to bring election integrity to the forefront?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 3: Limited, because remember Congress has limited jurisdictions. Sure, that's how
Speaker 3: the founders wanted it. The founders didn't want Congress involved
Speaker 3: in state elections. You know there's a reason for that too.
Speaker 3: It wasn't just they flipped the coin, do we want
Speaker 3: Congress involved or not? Go ahead and mister Adams flip
Speaker 3: the coin. No, it was because they knew centralized authority
Speaker 3: throughout human history brings disaster. It might start out as
Speaker 3: a really good idea, it might start out as really
Speaker 3: well attentioned, but it doesn't end up there. And the
Speaker 3: founders knew that. So our constitution has a presumption that
Speaker 3: the states are in charge, so I can be a
Speaker 3: little bit grateful in a way that Congress hasn't addressed
Speaker 3: this and states like Mississippi, Texas, Georgia.
Speaker 2: I'm just rattling off some great laws Florida.
Speaker 3: Florida passed a lot of great stuff that these laws
Speaker 3: are being passed. And look, I know people listening in
Speaker 3: Minnesota or Massachusetts or Maine might be saying.
Speaker 2: What about US.
Speaker 3: I get it, But this is a decision made in
Speaker 3: seventeen eighty seven and the founders were worried about not
Speaker 3: holding elections, and so they put the Election's clause in
Speaker 3: the Constitution. We should use that power very sparingly.
Speaker 1: Indeed, are there some areas though, in that Congress does
Speaker 1: have authority and they've kind of stepped aside or abdicated
Speaker 1: that authority.
Speaker 3: Well, one area that the congressional authority is going to
Speaker 3: impact the country is this election day. Is election day
Speaker 3: case that's going to Supreme Court. Congress passed a law
Speaker 3: and said ballots must be cast by election day. Okay,
Speaker 3: there you go. They've used that power under the elections
Speaker 3: clause to opine about what the law is. Now the
Speaker 3: question should they change the NVRA that doesn't require Americans
Speaker 3: to pay thirty thousand dollars to get the Alabama voter roll, right,
Speaker 3: should they change the NVRA that allows electronic records to
Speaker 3: be within the scope of what any American can get
Speaker 3: from an election office related to list maintenance. There are
Speaker 3: some areas around the edges where Congress could help the
Speaker 3: process where they've already made the decision to legislate.
Speaker 1: Yeah, how is that going? By the way, because PILF
Speaker 1: has been very instrumental in a number of states dealing
Speaker 1: with the high cost of obtaining voter roles. If let's
Speaker 1: be honest, if we can't see those voter roles, it
Speaker 1: is very hard to you know, talk about where election
Speaker 1: integrity stands, hard to gauge that you have dealt with
Speaker 1: some very very expensive costs associated with the voter roles,
Speaker 1: both in red and blue states. Where does that stand
Speaker 1: right now? And where do you see the fight ahead?
Speaker 2: So some good news. PILF has brought and won an
Speaker 2: outcome in New.
Speaker 3: Mexico where we got the outrageous fee dramatically reduced by
Speaker 3: thousands of dollars, and so you can get these records
Speaker 3: without paying a king's ransom. Now in New Mexico. I'll
Speaker 3: give you some bad news Alabama. Alabama fought really hard
Speaker 3: so they didn't have to turn over electronic records, and
Speaker 3: they got an eleventh Circuit decision saying so that they
Speaker 3: don't have to turn over electronic versions.
Speaker 2: Of voter rolls.
Speaker 3: And so we said, okay, fine, you won this case
Speaker 3: called Greater Birmingham Ministries. By the way, we'll take the
Speaker 3: voter roll records in pay per form the way you
Speaker 3: said that you prefer it. Well, guess what, they couldn't
Speaker 3: do it. They don't have enough paper to print, right.
Speaker 3: And so that's a real bad place that I hope
Speaker 3: sorts out. But it's one of these examples where you know,
Speaker 3: just because it's Alabama, just because it's New Mexico, don't
Speaker 3: think that the outcome is good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there are a lot of states too. I remember,
Speaker 1: and I'm speaking as an investigative reporter, Wisconsin was an
Speaker 1: extremely expensive place. I remember trying this was fifteen plus
Speaker 1: years ago, trying to track dead voters on the voter rolls.
Speaker 1: And I said, well, sure you can do that, but
Speaker 1: it's going to be ten thousand dollars plus a pop.
Speaker 1: Well that's very difficult because voter rolls are indeed subject
Speaker 1: to change. And if you've got to spend ten thousand
Speaker 1: dollars every couple of weeks to get read on voter rolls,
Speaker 1: that's going to price certainly the average citizen out of it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and there's something Congress can fix too, if you're
Speaker 3: looking for something to fix Wisconsin. By the way, the
Speaker 3: reason I say that is Wisconsin's one of six states
Speaker 3: exempted under the National Voter Ilellustration Act from transparency. And
Speaker 3: we just made arguments in the Seventh Circuit about this
Speaker 3: Court of Appeals.
Speaker 2: We had a similar case.
Speaker 3: In Minnesota that just got argued in the Eighth Circuit
Speaker 3: Court of Appeals as to whether or not this exemption
Speaker 3: from transparency election transparency under federal law is valid, and we.
Speaker 2: Argue it isn't.
Speaker 3: We ought to be able to get the records cheap,
Speaker 3: But Wisconsin and Minnesota took the opposite argument, and by
Speaker 3: the way, so did the US Justice Department. I might add,
Speaker 3: they were in court opposing pill on the question of
Speaker 3: cheap transparent voter rolls.
Speaker 1: Why why on earth ask them? Yeah, I think we should.
Speaker 1: I think that I think that the Trump campaign would
Speaker 1: certainly appreciate cheaper voter roles like every other campaign on
Speaker 1: the right and the left, you know, and obviously government
Speaker 1: watchdogs like yourself. Well, end with this final question for you,
Speaker 1: as we look ahead at this critical midterm election year.
Speaker 1: How confident are you in election integrity in America as
Speaker 1: we get closer and closer to election day?
Speaker 3: A whole lot more than I was years ago. A
Speaker 3: lot of progress has been made. There's so many good
Speaker 3: things happening in this space. I have confidence in my
Speaker 3: vote being counted, and I think most people hopefully share
Speaker 3: that view.
Speaker 1: Very good, sir, Well, it's always good to check in
Speaker 1: with you. You've got your your finger on the pulse of
Speaker 1: what's happening out there in election integrity because you're dealing
Speaker 1: with it every day, and I am sure we will
Speaker 1: talk often this year. All right, thank you for having
Speaker 1: mesolutely anytime. Our guests today, Jay Christian Adams, President and
Speaker 1: General Counsel for the Public Interest Legal Foundation, about the
Speaker 1: election integrity battles ahead. You've been listening to another edition
Speaker 1: of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, senior elections
Speaker 1: correspondent at the Federalist. We'll be back soon with more.
Speaker 1: Until then, stay lovers of freedom. I'm anxious for the
Speaker 1: pray