Speaker 1: This is your old experience SHIPA on the Quest for Knowledge.
Matt Kittle, Senior Elections correspondent at The Federalist. We talked
to a lot of interesting people, a lot of interesting
perspectives on this podcast. We couldn't do any of it
without you. The Federalist Foundation is a nonprofit and we
depend entirely on our listeners and readers, not corporations. If
you value fearless independent journalism, please consider a tax deductible
gift today at the Federalist dot com backslash donate. That's
the Federalist dot com backslash. Donate. Your support keeps us going,
and we thank you and go back with another edition
of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittles, 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 FDR LST, make sure to subscribe wherever you
download your podcast, and of course to the premium version
of our website as well. Our guest today, I am
proud to say, are the members of the best damn
Election Integrity team in the entire country for a conversation
about the year that was in election news and what's
to come in the critical mid year midterm year ahead.
El Pernell is a Federalist assignment editor, an election integrity
team chief or guru. Is that the correct title?
Speaker 2: El, I'll answer to any of the above, Well.
Speaker 1: You do an excellent job leading the team, and you
have for some time now are exceptional Reporter Sean Fleetwood,
Beth Brellia, Brianna Lynman, and Election Team Content editor Mazie
Jefferson perhaps the hardest working member of this team because
she has to deal with all of us. Let us
delve into first and foremost from the reporter's perspective, what
do you think are the biggest headlines in terms of
election integrity securing our elections in twenty twenty five? And
I want to ask that question in context of what
we experienced in twenty twenty four, and let's take that
back a few years from what we experienced in twenty
twenty and I guess the ultimate question, and I'll begin
with you, El, are our elections more secure today than
they were a year ago? I think I hope they're
definitely more secure than they they were five years ago.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think they're certainly more secure than
they were five years ago. There's a lot more people
paying attention, and I mean I think right now they
probably are at least as secure as they were a
year ago. But you see a lot of threats emerging
even this year. So for anyone who thinks, hey, we won,
you know, we had successful elections that were secure in
twenty twenty four. Now we don't have to worry about it.
We can move on to the next thing. That is
quite the misguided approach. So one of I think the
biggest election related issues this year is the redistricting battle.
And I'm sure we'll get into that more, but you
have states like California who are already dramatically jerrymanderd seizing
even more power to redraw the state and draw Republicans
out of the state entirely. So that's going to pose
a threat, you know, because that's rigging the elections before
the elect even starts, right. And then I think another
really interesting thing that's going to we'll have to watch
is you know, one of the biggest ways that Democrats
rig elections is via legal persecution. Now that might be
investigations like the Russia collusion hopes that we saw plague
the Trump campaign in twenty sixteen. It might be criminal
prosecutions like what we saw in twenty twenty four, but
those will only ramp up. There are already Democrats promising
to prosecute Trump officials for following legal orders. And we
really need to have a conversation about how to hold
people accountable for those acts of election rigging that are
very damaging to our republic or they will happen again.
Speaker 1: I think you raise a good point about lawfair and
I just want to linger on that point for a
while with Sean Fleetwood. Fleetwood, you have covered the lawfair
issue in elections in this country for a long time. Now,
what do you see? I guess as we look back
at twenty twenty five, what are the battles one on
that front? What are the battles lost? And what should
we be concerned about in the lawfair front in twenty
twenty six.
Speaker 3: So I think as far as the lawfair goes, I'm
just kind of pigging back off a little bit of
what Elle was talking about, you know, and holding people accountable.
I think to kind of avoid this going forward, you
have to understand the reality of actually holding people accountable.
And I think the difficulty for the Trump administration or
any Republican is when you are filing charges against Democrats
for wrongdoing and to kind of discourage and deter this
behavior going forward. Part of the challenge that you're going
to face is you know where you're having the jury
pools come from. If you're filing charges in a place
like DC or Northern Virginia, that's going to be a
tough sell to actually get juries which you're going to
be predominantly crazy leftists Democrats from actually agreeing to bring
those charges and convict these people for wrongdoing. So I
think that's going to be a problem going forward for Democrats.
Speaker 4: But as far as the lawfair that.
Speaker 3: We currently see right now, I think on the positive side,
I think what you've been seeing in recent months is
this kind of filtering out of Democrat lawfair, specifically state
based lawfair, not just against Donald Trump, but against a
lot of the Republican alternate electors that you saw on
twenty twenty. Recently, Fannie Willis, the DA from Fulton County, Georgia,
her case against Trump and the Republican electors there was
just thrown out. You had a Michigan judge who throughout
the Democrat AG's lawfair in that state. You also have
in Nevada and Arizona those state based lawfair prosecutions against
the Republican electors that are seemingly filtering out and might
ultimately get smacked down in the court systems there. So
I think those are some good positive developments. But as
Elle is kind of alluding to, you have Democrats that
are already saying that you know, they're going to prosecute
Republicans are basically anyone who's aligned with Trump as soon
as they get back in power. So I think Republicans, now,
whether that be at the state level, whether that be
at the federal level, need to be looking at ways
to insulate, you know, our people from that type of
grace abuse of power going forward.
Speaker 1: Now that raises a good question too, Beth. I'll ask
you this, and it's something as we talk about we
move through twenty twenty five, we finish up this interesting year,
to say the least, But twenty twenty six, Donald Trump
isn't on the ballot, and I think we have seen
some warning signs at least they should be warning signs
for Republicans that they're going to have to do a
lot more heavy lifting, perhaps even than they did in
twenty twenty four, to get particularly low propensity voters out
of vote in an election where they don't think Trump
is on the ballot. And I say that because obviously
his name is not there, but certainly his policies, his agenda,
America First strategies, all of that are up for grabs.
What do the Republicans need to do and what are
they failing to do in terms of getting that message
out that there is so much at stake for this
republic in twenty twenty six in a midterm where the
incumbent party traditionally doesn't do very well.
Speaker 5: Yeah, you know, for one thing, there are very few
people that are really working the ground game. There are
some nonprofits that are doing that, but this should be
like full party, everybody in. And there's this issue where
people they only want to vote in the presidential election,
so we have super low voter turnout.
Speaker 6: But like in the.
Speaker 5: Midterms, people forget that in some districts, some congressional districts,
the election is going to be won at the primary level.
People think forget the primary. I'll just show up for
the general election. Well, let's say like in Minnesota, ilhan
Omar's district, right, that's Minneapolis. That is like ninety eight
percent Democrat registered Democrat voters. So there's no way a Republican's.
Speaker 1: Going to win.
Speaker 5: So every primary, whoever wins the primary is pretty much
a shoe in for that position, and people need to
vote like it. I just don't think voters understand that,
and I don't think the media does a really good
job of putting that out there. I also think for
local news it can be hard to get reporters that
understand how congressional elections work, and there are so many candidates,
especially at the primary level, that they're not really sure
you know, how to handle that, how to report it out.
But I think that more attention on the primary and
getting people to show up for these elections is going
to be a big you know, we really let just
a handful of people. Whatever candidate can get more people
to the poll wins, obviously, but that isn't the same
as having the majority of the population say this is
the candidate we want to lead us for the good
of our of our area.
Speaker 1: Quick follow up question for you on that. You've covered
a lot of stories out of Minnesota. Interesting state, almost
it almost feels like another country in Minneapolis for sure.
But just a quick question on that front. Is Governor
Tim Walls mentally challenged?
Speaker 6: Well?
Speaker 5: Or are the voters? I don't know Minnesota voters, but
how does.
Speaker 1: That Well, the Somalis are making a good deal of
money off of Walls, so no problem there, no wonder
they're turning out in droves in Minnesota.
Speaker 5: Like like in New York, Minnesota is a more advanced
version of New York where the Democrat Socialists of America
have taken over the df L, the Democrat Former Labor Union,
which is Minnesota's version of the Democrat Party, and within
that party there's a lot of argument over who's in charge,
and they're the DSA has overtaken the more traditional Democrat,
leaving traditional Democrat nowhere to go because they don't support
the you know, they can't they can't stand to vote
for a Republican. But they don't like the candidates that
are put in front of them either. And I'm and
I've been on the ground there in Minnesota, and they
really they don't know what to do, so that's a
real problem for them.
Speaker 2: Matt On, I take one more thing about your original question,
how Republicans can get people to turn out and vote
for them in the midterms.
Speaker 4: I think the.
Speaker 2: Number one easiest and also maybe hardest for them thing
that they can do is just give people something to
vote for. Republicans in Congress have done zilch. They have
gone that they've been at the pace of a snail.
They've failed to codify many of the things that President
Trump has implemented through executive order. As we all know,
executive orders can easily be overturned. Right now, they're talking
about giving Democrats. Some Republicans are talking about giving Democrats
the Obamacare subsidies that the whole first shutdown was staged over.
So I think, you know, I don't blame voters for
not turning out for Republicans because Republicans are completely uninteresting
and unmotivating. I think there were a lot of things
that President Trump ran on that did excite voters, and
if Republicans want to capitalize on his success, they need
to advance the same kind of things.
Speaker 1: Now, now, el are you telling me that Speaker Mike
Johnson isn't inspiring.
Speaker 2: He is such he seems like such a nice guy.
Speaker 7: I like him, but he's totally.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, no, no, no, remember he's praying on the situation.
And let me tell you something right off the bat.
I love the Lord, and I certainly appreciate and have
experienced the power of prayer. But Mike Johnson needs to
do a little less praying and a little more acting.
Because I think you are absolutely right. What do Republicans,
what do conservatives? What do grassroots conservatives really have to
count on victories from Congress? They got a lot of
victories from executive orders from the most that I can remember, certainly,
and I've been around the sun several times, so to speak,
on this planet. But you know, the most ambitious, the
most action pack, the most motivated administration that we have seen,
certainly in our lifetimes, and certainly one of the most
outside of James K. Polk, in the history of this
great Republic. Briann, I want to turn to you because
on the two points, you are our New York based reporter.
God love you. You should get casually pay. You should
also get casually paid because you're our Fox correspondent, opinion
contributor there and you've also appeared on CNN. So I'll
ask you first and foremost, when you're finished with a
session with those folks, how many times do you have
to show after that?
Speaker 7: Matt, there is not enough showers in the world that
can rid me. I'm just to discuss that they make
me feel when I finish a Senate segment.
Speaker 1: I can imagine. I have seen it, I have watched it.
You know, you are trying to speak truth to Marxist power,
but it is it is difficult. Now onto the New
York the serious side of things. Your state, your city,
New York City, in this election elected an absolute socialist,
if not a communist, in Moron Mandami. Where do you
see that as a sign of things to come for
the leftist movement in America, the Democrat Party and for
Republicans in next year's election.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I think for a long time of people have
assumed that there was just a socialist wave, but it
appears that it's a socialist tsunami that is crashing into
the Democratic establishment because Hakim Jeffrey's Chuck Schumer. This was
an opportunity with Mom Donnie running to reject the socialist
wing of their party. That is really encroaching on the
entire party, and they didn't do that, and instead you
had members of the Democratic establishment either implicitly or explicitly
endorse Mom Donnie. And it sent the signal that socialism
and communism and Marxism is permissible.
Speaker 2: And it's acceptable.
Speaker 7: And so you're going to see that socialism wave grow
larger and larger. And when you think about that, you think, well,
what are Republicans doing to counter that? While we all know,
thank god, they passed a resolution recently condemning socialism, which
will definitely do a lot. And she went Axios, who
reported a few weeks back, and it said, Republicans are
excited about this Mam donni one because they're going to
use it in the midterms and they're going to tell
people socialism is bad. If that line of reasoning worked,
then we would never have a Mom Donnie because Republicans
have been banging that drum for years. They did it
with Bernie, they did it with AOC, they did it
with other members of the squad. Socialism is bad. That
doesn't change that people are still going out there and
voting for the socialists. In fact, there was an internal
pull from Axios this past summer in which they found
that the issue with Mom Donnie wasn't that people didn't
know who he was or what his policies were. It's
that there were enough people who knew who he was
and liked his policies. So Republicans have no real game
plan on how do they fight this wave of socialism
that is taking over the Democratic Party and becoming mainstream.
And I think one of the issues is is we
are in an age of technology, and Mom Donnie campaigned.
I saw him all over Instagram, TikTok, Twitter with thirty
second sound bites, and unfortunately he wasn't saying anything that
sounded extreme.
Speaker 4: At first.
Speaker 7: He was saying people should be able to afford food,
you should be able to put a roof over your head. That,
I say, very simple and populous message. It's the same
message that Donald Trump uses. Of course, they have very
different means to get to those ends. But the average
is in listening past that thirty second SoundBite, they're not
listening to how Mom Donnie wants to put food on
the table or wants to have a roof over your head.
And so when you hear those short soundbites from Mom Donnie,
AOC and Sanders. That is something that could attract voters
who maybe don't spend all day long reading and consuming
the news and you know political philosophy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and see that's the disconnect that we see in
the Republican Party. Trump gets it. He understands affordability, or
as the wooden headed Democrat strategists said a long time ago,
it is the economy stupid. It's still the economy stupid.
More so than anything, it's the fact that you have
to in this country be an average age of forty
before you can afford your first house, and even then
it's a struggle. The issues that we're seeing still plaguing
us from the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act, ill named
as it was and absolutely did not reduce inflation. We're
still paying the bills on that. Mazie. You read a lot.
You have to, because that's the gig as a content editor.
You read a lot of political reporting. You read a
lot on election integrity, what's happening in other states? What
most concerned you this year when it came to the
election integrity battles in particularly swing states? You know, and
I know Beth Covers has covered extensively Pennsylvania, Sean and
our other reporter who's not here today, election integrity reporter
b Reckon. He has covered Virginia quite extensively. Where do
you see the battle lines being drawn as we wrap
up twenty twenty five in election integrity law in these
critical states?
Speaker 8: Yeah, for sure. Well, to kind of piggyback of what
Beth and l pointed out, I think Republicans have a
history of pushing really hard during like the presidential election years,
and then essentially dropping the ball on off years. And
there are great grassroots orgs and conservative law firms, you know,
getting involved in these swing states. I think of Michigan
and suing Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, which I'm sure
I know you've covered, Matt, But it seems like these
orgs don't get the same level of air support from
the RNC or from Republican leaders unless it's a quote
unquote big election. And ahead of November twenty twenty four,
it felt as though more Republican lawmakers, more RNC members
were pushing the need for election reform, especially in these
swing states where you know, the vote, the vote really counts,
where elections are easily riggable, but once Trump made it
across the finish line, it seems like this these efforts,
at least at the higher level, sort of dissipated. And
while some state lawmakers and governors have enacted common sense
election integrity laws since last November, I think of Arizona
and Wyoming, and overall, it seems many Republican state leaders
have warmed up to the idea that reform is needed,
but we're not really seeing this as much in swing
states from my perspective. And now is the time to
be enacting federal policy, common sense policy, introducing and advancing
bills that, for example, require proof of citizenship for federal elections,
like the Save Act. But what are Congressional Republicans doing instead?
They're sitting on this legislation and getting involved in infighting,
instead of focusing on the agenda that got Trump elected
in the first place, that you know, clinched those swing
state wins. So I'm nervous about how little ground is
being gained, particularly.
Speaker 4: In the swing states.
Speaker 2: I think we should ask Brianna what she thinks about
the Republicans in Congress who have so far failed to
pass the Save Act.
Speaker 4: Oh yes, please.
Speaker 7: Please, they're also they're all so squishy. There's only one
Congressman or maybe if you actually Brandon Gill chip Roy,
who seem intent on doing what they were elected to do,
which is do something. So the Save Act is out there.
There's also the Pause Act for Immigration, which would work
in conjunction with the Save Act. And we just saw
a few weeks ago, of course, an unelected Inferior Court
judge put a block on President Trump's executive order which
would require proof of citizenship to vote. And it's like, yeah,
that happened, but it wouldn't be a problem if Congress
passed the Save Act and l to your point earlier,
the only thing Republicans have done legislatively is the one big,
beautiful bill, and they think they can write on that
for the next however many years as oh, look, we're
actually doing our job. That is not enough. It does
not answer many of the requests that Republicans had when
they turned out and voted last year. And if Republicans
don't get their act together, they deserve to lose.
Speaker 1: Good point, Saul and Brianna. You know as much as
you and I and the rest of this team have
been repulsed by the lack of action on the Save
Act again, which would demand require that everyone who registers
to vote show documentary proof of citizenship. I don't think
that's a big ask. And you know what, the vast
majority of Americans don't think that is a burden or
is a real issue when it comes to election integrity.
In fact, you know, the vast majority of American voters
are with those who have pushed forward the Save Act.
But Sean, let me let me ask you this, because
you've covered this issue, and you've covered this man quite
a bit, and I know he's one of your all
time favorites. We as we understand it, some very good
sources have told this election Integrity team that Mitch McConnell
is the one who is blocking any movement on the
Save Act in the Senate. What do you think about
those reports and does any of that surprise you.
Speaker 3: I'm inclined to believe them, just given what we know
about Mitch McConnell, but it doesn't really surprise me. I mean, well, well,
first off, I should say this about Mitch McConnell. Are
even clear that he's the one who's actually running his
Senate office right now?
Speaker 4: And you know, it's very.
Speaker 3: Sad that he's getting up there in age and going
through these health problems like any person. But I think
it's pretty disgrace that he's very clearly unable to execute
the duties of his office and is really just having
his unelected staffers run the show and represent the people
of Kentucky. And if you're unable to execute those duties,
you need to resign and step down and make room
for someone who is capable of doing those duties. You know,
Mitch McConnell's accomplished great things for Republicans and Conservatives throughout
the years, but he's also done a lot of terrible things,
and so blocking the Save Act, as we've heard from
these reports, doesn't really surprise me at all, you know.
As far as to why, I don't know if it's
a policy disagreement or a personal grudge against President Trump,
although I would probably suspect the ladder. It doesn't really
surprise me because Mitch McConnell has been in DC for
decades and it's largely just been about himself and putting
his interest in his family's interests first. So at the
end of the day, it doesn't shock me that even
though he stepped down as majority leader, he's still kind
of pulling the strings in many respects in.
Speaker 1: The background to that end, do you think what has
ever left of his cognition chamber is all concentrated on
his loathing and hatred for Donald Trump.
Speaker 4: Many, I would say a good deal of that.
Speaker 3: I mean, we certainly saw that during the confirmation for
many of President Trump's cabinet officials, Secretary Haig Seth, Tolsey Gabbard,
people of that nature who he you know, went to
the Senate flor and voted no against and made those
votes a lot closer than they should have been. So,
you know, it doesn't totally surprise me that if that
was one of, if not the main, reason as to
why he's holding up significant legislation that you know, as
you guys mentioned, is broadly supported by a large segment
of the American public and certainly supported by a large
chunk of the Republican base.
Speaker 9: The Treasury just made a huge announcement regarding illegal immigrants.
The watched Out on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski.
Every day, Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and
the economy and how toffects year wild. The Treasury says
illegal immigrants will be removed from the financial system completely.
If you can't get a job here and you can't
get benefits, you're not going to come. This should have
been done years ago. Whether it's happening in DC or
down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially. Be informed.
Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast.
Speaker 1: Our guests today are members of the best dang election
integrity team in the country. We're talking about the year
that was in election news and what's to come in
the critical midterm year ahead with our very own Federalist
election integrity team. Lots of stories filed this year, l
on so many different issues, but Brianna brought it up.
Maysi brought it up. As we look ahead at twenty
twenty six and behind in this rapidly ending twenty twenty five,
we have seen the real insurrection in American politics that
coming from the lower federal courts. How much will these
I'm not even going to call them rogue judges because
it's systemic, it's happening throughout how much of you know,
the judicial coup that's going on. How much will that
shape the outcome of the twenty twenty six elections.
Speaker 2: Well, potentially very much so. And I mean that that
could be because the lower court judges are blocking things
like President Trump's Election Integrity Executive Order, or it could
be through you know, other ways that are less directly
related to elections. The courts are interesting, though, and there
are some interesting cases that are coming to Scotus about
elections between now and the midterms. So one that I
think is worth talking about is I believe it's called
R and C versus Wetzel, and it's a case arising
out of Missus where the provisions that are being challenged
are the state's acceptance of ballots arriving after election day.
And you know, you think, like, oh, election, you can't
you can't go to the polls after election day and vote.
Election day used to be when the election is over.
You heard on election night who won. But now we
have this extension of election day, not just before election day,
but also after election day. You have I think it's
about thirty states that accept ballots coming in after election day.
And the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case.
I believe we'll have a decision on it next year,
so that could be really huge. Just to give one example,
in Nevada in the twenty twenty two midterms, according to
a reporter with the Nevada Independent, there were thirty nine,
nine hundred and fifteen male ballots that arrived after election day,
So that's nearly forty thousand ballots. The Senate race that
same year, which was won by the Democrat in Cortez Masto,
was one by nine thousand and seven votes, So you
had mail ballots coming in after election day that were
equivalent to four times in the margin of victory. That's
something that if the Supreme Court comes in and says no,
that's clearly unconstitutional, that could have really seen a different
consequences for the midterms and beyond.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I remember that election. I remember that story. I
just I still am amazed how that was allowed to happen.
But that's exactly what gets at this Mississippi case that's
so critical. Beth. You've reported on a great many stories
involving the courts getting involved in deciding election law one
way or the other. What are some of the more
interesting cases that you've seen on election integrity. I know
there have been quite a few in your home state
of Pennsylvania.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and you know, again low voter turnout. The state
Supreme Court is handling most of those cases. And uh,
Republicans had a chance to change that Democrat heavy and
Democrat favoring uh the Supreme Court this past election, and
did not have enough voter turnout to make that happen.
Speaker 4: But you know, we put.
Speaker 5: Garbage data into our elections, voter registration and voter ID right,
these are it seems like a lot of stuff boils
down to that. Of course, the timing what I was
talking about, we have that in Pennsylvania as well, the
debate over you know, when you know, how long can
we continue counting ballots and ballots from overseas and we have.
Speaker 6: The the envelopes, like the signature on the envelope, the
data on the envelope, Do we count it?
Speaker 5: Do we not? The naked ballots, So they are all
those things are subjects of lawsuits that have been appealed
and appealed and appealed back and forth with the decisions.
Speaker 4: So what we.
Speaker 5: Really need to do is figure it out and boil
it down to getting our voter registration right by requiring
a photo id to save Act right. It comes back
down to that against why it's such a strong love
we can get it across the finish line, because what
ultimately happens is, no matter how messy the election is,
ultimately they're going to certify the results even if the
results feel really yucky. And when that happens, we just
lose our trust, whether we like the results or not.
How can we possibly trust the results if they certify
an election that looks so messy. Here in Pennsylvania this
last go around in November, we had pull books that
were people come in to sign a pull book and
they gave one county distributed the wrong poll book. You
can't vote in Pennsylvania primaries unless you're a registered Republican
or Democrat. Well, there were seventy seven thousand independents or
third party registered voters whose names did not appear in
the pull books, and about twelve thousand of them showed
up to vote in November, and they all had to
do provisional ballots. Normally that county does like one thousand
or fewer provisional ballots in an election. They had to
go through twelve thousand provisional ballots. Elections certified. People feel
funny about it. We can't have that.
Speaker 1: No, that is the cornerstone of our elections.
Speaker 2: Matt, I'm so sorry. I have to correct my numbers.
They're even more outrageous than I said. That forty thousand
male ballots after election day numbers not for the whole
state of Nevana. That was for Clark County alone.
Speaker 1: No, that I remember, I remember that, well, I don't.
I didn't remember all the numbers. I knew it was
an incredible amount. But Clark County, as our good friends
at the Public Interest Legal Foundation will tell you, has
been a serious problem for a long time. That's why
PILF has been involved there and elsewhere in terms of
the voter rolls, and Bethew mentioned it the curing of ballots.
That's similar to what Elle was talking about in these
long expanded election timelines where ballots are counted, allowed to
be counted days, sometimes over a week after the actual
election day. I mean, it is astounding, and I think
a lot of Americans are rightly concerned that that too,
is part of an overall rigging of the election. Sean,
you have covered these issues a great deal over the
last year. In particular, you have covered the Supreme Court
and where it is heading, as we talked about before,
not only with some of these critical election integrity laws,
but also with the handling of these lower courts. Where
do you see the Supreme Court weighing in particular, as
Elle mentioned at the outset of our conversation, as we
move forward with these mid decade redistricting plans that we
have seen in Texas and California, talk of that in
Illinois and Virginia. Illinois, of course, already I think, without
a doubt the most jerrymandered state in the country, right
up there with Massachusetts. Where do you see all of
that going on the redistricting side?
Speaker 4: Sure, so two points on that one.
Speaker 3: We've kind of already seen them step into some degree
with Texas. I believe it was last week or the
week prior, they came out and issued an order basically
staying a lower court order that prohibited Texas from implementing
its new map. So that will allow Texas to use
its new map for the twenty twenty six mid terms,
which will favor Republicans. But I think one of the
more notable cases that we're seeing that will be decided
sometime next year is the old Louisiana Versus Klai. This
was a case that was originally supposed to be decided
last year during its twenty twenty four term, that the
Court announced on the last day of its session that
it was punting it to this year, and so they
heard or arguments on that back in October were and
this is a case that centers around the use of
race in the redistricting process.
Speaker 4: So I'll try and numb down.
Speaker 3: The proceedings as much as possible, But basically what happened
is Louisiana created this congressional map that had a single
black congressional district or black majority congressional district district. Court
judge granted a request from plaintiffs to block that new
map's implementation. The plaintiffs alleged that it was a violation
of Section two of the Voting Rights Act and that
it was an unlawful you know, basically ignoring the use
of race in the redistricting process, that it diluted the
black vote. And so the court agreed placed in a
pause on that. The Supreme Court lifted that, but as
litigation continued, the state ended up drawing a new map,
this time with two black majority congressional districts, different group
of plaintiffs sue alleging that the state unlawfully prioritized race
and drawing the map, and that that's a violation of
the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. Different district court comes
out issues in order and blocks the new map. And
so basically what the Supreme Court is going to do
is rectify. Okay, well, who's right, But to the bigger
question is the use of race in the redistricting process
a violation of the fourteenth and fifteenth Amendment in the
case of Louisiana, And I think depending on how the
Court comes down on that issue and the scope of
that ruling will have major implications for how states grapple
with redistricting and the use of race in that process
moving forward. Now, it's been such a convoluted issue that
has plagued the lower courts for decades. The Supreme Court
has had a couple of rulings on it in prior
decades that haven't really offered much clarity to states on
how to deal with these issues. So hopefully whatever the
Supreme Court produces in this Louisiana case will provide that
guidance and kind of concrete you know, rules for states
moving forward when it comes to this process.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you are absolutely right. Now you're going to say
that is at the core issue that we are seeing
play out in real time now. California is absolutely in
my opinion, and I think, you know, the maps will
show you that is an absolute race based jerrymander, which
is there are few times where that is acceptable. And
you know, political gerrymanders are the spoils of war. That's
basically how this Court has looked at it. But yeah, California,
you got the state of Wisconsin now entering the redistricting area,
where you have a leftist Supreme Court that is rigging
this system and basically delivering what the latest leftist elected
in April. You know, the massive amounts of money that
the left put into the Wisconsin Supreme Court election to
elect this liberal. You know, they're getting what they paid for.
Do you believe the Supreme Court will reject California's redistricting
plan ultimately and some of these others based on racial jerrymanderin.
Speaker 3: So, I think ultimately it will, and I think it
will have to be well, first, I think we'll have
to see what they decide in the Louisiana case, and
I think that that will ultimately, uh, you know, impact
how the lower.
Speaker 4: Courts handle that case.
Speaker 3: But I think ultimately, if it does come up to
the Supreme Court, which I'm sure it will at some point,
that the Justice is if they were to rule in
the Louisiana case that yes, the state unlawfully used race
in the redistricting process.
Speaker 4: If they were to rule that way, I see.
Speaker 3: A majority on the Court ultimately agreeing that, yes, California,
if the facts bear out that, yes, you guys unlawfully
used race in the redistricting process, which as it already seems,
they most certainly did on this on.
Speaker 1: This Yeah, Actually, Brion, I was going to ask you
that because speaking of the fourteenth Amendment, and we'll get
to your point in just a moment, But speaking of
the fourteenth Amendment, we have the Supreme Court now weighing
in on birthright citizenship, and that is another facet of
all of this, particularly in places like California that have
used non citizens to bolster their reputation, their representation in Congress.
Speaker 7: Yeah, mat, that's a lot of question. I'm going to
start with Fleewood's to keep it in lot. I actually
would argue that there is a better chance that the
Supreme Court does hold up California's map because in Alito's
recent announcement regarding Texas, in which he issued the stay,
he said that Texas appeared to have drawn their new
map for partisan and political purposes, which is legal, and
then at the very end he notes and it appears
that California did the same. So it almost seems to
me like Alito's alluding that Texas read drew its maps
for parts and purposes, and it apparently seems like California
did too. So I would say that right now it
appears that the Supreme Court believes California to some degree
use partisan or political reasons to redraw.
Speaker 1: So that might be yes, yes, but didn't Texas get
around that? Based on what I've heard from some constitutional
law experts, by you, a, what was it? The Fifth
Circuit had weighed in on this issue and changed its position,
and Texas followed the Fifth Circuits ruling basically and putting
together its maps. That's why Texas survives where California doesn't.
What do you think of that?
Speaker 7: Well, so that's what makes this a hire case in
Texas in particular. Interesting, So what you're referring to is Galveston.
So the Bible with the Deberation decided to gamble Congress
away back and I think it was twenty twenty two
when they sued the County of Galveston because Galveston Redistrict
did and it eliminated the sole district in which a
black man I believe was holding the seat. And Texas
ended up Galveston sued and made its way up to
the Fifth Circuit. And what the Fifth Circuit ruled is
that coalition districts are unconstitutional. Now, a coalition district is
when you don't have a majority minority community, you are
allowed to combine multiple minority groups to create a minority
majority district. So let's say there aren't enough you know,
black presidents to create a predominantly black district that gives
them the representation that they say they need. Right, you
can cobble together Hispanics with the blacks. And that's what
Texas was doing. And the Fifth Circuit said, no, you're
using race. You can't do that. So Texas read threw
its maps. But here's the problem. When Harmie Dyllon sent
a letter to Texas on the basis of you must
you know, redistrict in order to comply with the you know,
race based findings. That's when the left said, oh, this
is a race based redistricting that you're doing. But what
Texas responded to that argument is, look, Harmie Dillon sent
a letter, yes, but ultimately there was political pressure from
the Trump administration and political pressure from our con stituents
to redraw these maps because we want to hold the House.
So that's actually their ultimate argument in the court is
that this was still political. Nonetheless, like, yes, Galveston happened,
the Fifth Circuit happened, but we drew these only for
political reasons, nothing to do with race.
Speaker 1: Yeah, amazing. That's sticking on the redistricting topic because it
is such a significant issue this year and definitely as
we move forward, what are we seeing from the polling,
what are we seeing from voters, What are we seeing
from grassroots groups out there in this battle and in
their arguments? And personally, where do you think those where's
the line where do the arguments prevail?
Speaker 8: Well, I mean I was reading up on this redistricting
issues sort of leading up to today's meeting, and I
ran across this interesting piece that Sean actually wrote earlier
this year about how with these redistricting conversations, I mean,
as Brianna and you Matt as well mentioned, the Democrats
have basically jerrymandered all they can, right, and at the
same time they're saying Republicans are attempting to re elections
by doing their own redistricting and own jerrymandering, which is interesting.
But this piece that Sean wrote made an interesting point
about how sorry, I'm finding my place here. Sure, so,
multiple states, the US Census Bureau released a report in
after the twenty twenty census that revealed significant errors favoring
Democrats in counting, basically revealing population undercounts in swing states,
but swing states that are considered red states. And so
it's it's interesting to see how this has, this redistricting
issue has It's not just there are more than just
political reasons to do this right there. There are significant
census errors and census concerns in the mix as well.
And I think grassroots I think that's an effective angle
for grassroots organizations to kind of play into, is this
isn't just about the midterms, This isn't just about winning
the next election. But it's about rectifying some serious counting
errors and representation errors in elections, in elections where voters
need to have a voice and need to be accurately
represented and not be over not have their districts be
I guess tainted by essentially illegal or non citizens who
have been counted in the census as well.
Speaker 1: I think that's a great word, tainted. That's what we
have been dealing with for a long time. And it
is in these blue states California and Massachusetts, and New
York and Illinois, and the list goes on and on.
But you know, really it's not only about representation, which
is bad for our republic and our representative democracy. It's
also about how much money is flowing, our taxpayer dollars
flowing because of who is part of the population, who
has represented how much population, And the Census Bureau itself
said that there are serious flaws in that, so much
so that there have been recommendations to have a mid
decade recount. I think ultimately they're going to have to
clean all of this up, will they, That's a big question,
and really get a handle on this as we move
into the twenty thirty census. But this is a huge,
huge problem that does not get enough attention. I want
to go around the table now as we close out
our conversation on election integrity, about really this question for
all of you, what, as reporters and editors frightens you
most about the current state of election integrity heading into
twenty twenty six? What gives you comfort or a positive sense? Beth,
I'll begin with you on that.
Speaker 5: You know, I think we need to recognize how much
immigration affected our election integrity. I mentioned earlier about a
voter registration. We have people driving on the roads who
have CDL driver's licenses, non domiciled driver's licenses, so it
says right in their license they're not a US citizen,
they're non domiciled, but they have a driver's license number.
And when you register to vote, when you ask for
a mail in ballot or you remotely register to vote
without a photo ID, all you have to provide is
a social Security number or a driver's license number. There
is no box on there to say you're non domiciled
or not. So once we give people driver's licenses, and
now we know, of course, there are many illegal aliens
who are driving with these bogus driver's licenses they were
somehow issued, they're actually real licenses, so they have the
ID to get registered to vote. We see through just
go the Federalist archives and it is rich with stories
about they say it doesn't happen, but non citizens are
indeed voting. So we need to get a handle on that.
And again it really comes down to a photo ID
and a real background check before we give someone. We
want to make it accessible for people accessible, but we
really need to know who's voting, and it cannot be.
Speaker 1: So sense John, that is yeah, yeah, I know, you're
absolutely right, John, That's a huge issue and it ties
into the Save Act and all of those other things.
For my greatest concern has to be at least near
the top of the list dirty voter rules across the
country in so many states. What's your biggest concern on
election integrity as we head into twenty twenty six in
the midterms.
Speaker 3: I think it's a more general and kind of broader
point about voting and citizenship in general. I mean, we
were talking earlier about the complacency of the Republican Party
and how they're not doing anything with their majorities in Congress,
and I think you know, money and resources in the
power of the establishment is obviously a big part of
keeping that system in place and keeping that infrastructure in place,
But it ultimately boils down to the everyday citizen. Being
a voter and being a citizen are two very different things,
and I think, unfortunately, what we've seen, even in the
Trump era is a great deal of complacency among the
everyday Republican voter. How many of your Republican voters who
vote in a general or presidential election bother to show
up in the Republican primary, and how many of those
people who vote in the primary actually vote for a
candidate that actually agrees with them and actually will do
what they believe in. Too often, what we've seen throughout
the years, in the decades is this repeated disinterest among
the American people and among a lot of the Republican
base to actually be a citizen, to get involved in
the primary process and vet candidates and make sure that
there are people who actually will uphold the promises that
they're making and if they don't throw them out of
office in the next primary, you know, being engaged with local, state,
and federal government. We can get mad at the Republicans
in Congress for not doing anything all day long. But
until we the people are actually willing to step up
and be citizens and be involved in our government, none
of that's going to change. And unfortunately, you know, I
hope I'm wrong, but unfortunately I don't see that happening
anytime soon. I think that, you know, we need a
lot of spiritual revival in this country, and the only
way we're going to get back to being citizens is
through that spiritual revival. So that's something I'm always concerned about,
not just this coming election cycle, but for the long
term future of our country.
Speaker 1: I couldn't agree with you more on the spiritual revival
side of things. There is a deep void, of deep
chasm in so many lives out there. It's also frustrating
to be a conservative and you know, believe in conservative
values and vote for people who espouse conservative values, but
don't show up when it's time when the rubber hits
the road. Brianna, if you look at and this is
it's not a harbinger necessarily, but there are some troubling
signs from the special elections this year. The turnout for
Republicans been Florida and certainly in the Blue states, Virginia
and New Jersey is and the special election recently in
Tennessee where you have an absolute Marxist on the ballot.
There is no other way to describe aften Ben or Bean,
who is the Nashville state representative who just has you know,
they call her the AOC of Tennessee, and she goes
beyond AOC, that's for sure. But there are some troubling
signs about where the grassroots stand as we enter the
twenty twenty six election. I don't know if that's your
biggest concern, but as Sean said, it definitely plays into
everything we've talked about today.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean I agree.
Speaker 7: You know, if you don't have voters who turn out,
then you don't have people who vote, and you don't
elect Republicans. And you know Tell's earlier point, the easiest
way for Republicans to ensure voter turnout is to just
do something right, do something that you were elected to do.
That being said, Republicans are traditionally low propensity voters. Getting
them to turn out and off your election cycles is
very difficult. It's not that it's something that just happened
this tast election cycle. So you know, could this past
November be a bellweather suore. But will it one hundred
percent be a bell weather no, because Republicans have a
tendency to only turn out, you know, in presidential elections
the most, and then midterms. That being said to be
on a positive note, I think what I'm hopeful about
is the R and c's election day integrity efforts were
actually really impressive last year. They they were on the
ground everywhere, they made sure there was parody and all
these polling locations, and there were lawyers in all of
these big cities to catch incidents that people suddenly were
flagging that were questionable. In a lot of cases it
turned out to be nothing. But having those Republican eyes
there really adds a layer of comfort to voters to
know that people are actually working there on their behalf
to ensure that things are being done properly. So I
think going into November, if we have one that same
R and C turnout for election integrity at these polling locations,
that's something really good. And two the other thing is
if we can get people to turn out, that will
be a recipe for success. So Republicans have eleven months
to get stuff done.
Speaker 1: The election integrity team of the RNC. You're absolutely right,
did some really great work on the ground. I think
it mattered. It made a difference in the twenty twenty
four election. We'll see if they come out in the
same way full force in twenty twenty six. One of
the things that I'm concerned about is that the Democrats
are so desperate They're going and they always find new
evolutionary ways to rig elections or put their thumb on
the scales. And I really do believe they want to
impeach Donald Trump again multiple times so much, and they
want to completely shut down his agenda. They're desperate to
do that, and that desperation speaks of the potential and
higher probability that there will be Shenanigans coming up in
twenty twenty six. How do you feel about that and
what is your biggest worry moving ahead?
Speaker 8: Yeah, for sure. So I think Elle mentioned earlier. Trump
passed or signed an election or sorry not executive order
on election integrity, and like all of his exact pecutive actions,
this has been met with lawsuits and law fairs and
media claims that he's attempting to rig elections or the midterms.
And as I've been following election stories this year. Trump
has requested voter data from multiple states, presumably to investigate
to what extent our elections have been infiltrated by non
citizens or to determine if states are actually upholding federal
law by maintaining clean voter roles, And the media has
of course run cover for these states in their non compliance,
and the media and Democrats say Trump is on a
witch hunt for information that will feel his claims about
US elections being unreliable and riggable. And I just don't
think it's a witch hunt, considering report after report revealing
non citizens on the roles in multiple states, and lawsuit
after lawsuit alleging election officers are not doing their jobs
to ensure election security. You know, we've seen that since
before the twenty twenty four election, and it's still happening now.
And as I said earlier, Democrats accused Trump of rigging
elections while he attempts to prevent them from rigging elections.
So I'm just nervous that he's going to get so
his agenda has been so bogged down in this kind
of judicial lawfair coup that's been happening. But that coup
is essentially just extremely hypocritical because it's this lawfair is
preventing him from actually, you know, safeguarding elections from being rigged.
Speaker 1: And never forget, these are the same people who confuse
accountability with weaponization, and they, the Democrats, are experts when
it comes to weaponization of the justice system. Al you're
the boss, you get the last word on all of this.
I know you've got a plan. That plan is evolving
for coverage in twenty twenty six. Where do you see
all of this going?
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, to answer your original question, as far as
my biggest concern in this next year and beyond in
general and specifically as a Virginia resident, my biggest election
related concern is that Democrats are willing and even eager
to elect people who want Republicans and their families, people
who believe similar things to many of us, to be murdered.
This propensity toward political violence on the left, it's terrifying.
We've seen you with the murder of Charlie Kirk this year.
But you know, we should not think of these intimidation
tactics as unrelated to elections and campaigns. And as exhibit
one of that, I'll just remind all of you of
what happened in Butler last year, as I'm sure you
don't need to be reminded. So I think this is
going to be one of the big fights, and we
shouldn't overlook relation to elections and how candidates are able
to stage campaigns when we have that push from the
left toward political violence.
Speaker 7: And to end on a positive.
Speaker 2: Note, as far as something I'm encouraged by, it does
seem like the trumpet administration really does care about election reform.
They're doing what they can, They're you know, being sidelined,
They're being the courts are stepping in and doing what
they can to knock them off course with that, but
both with elections and with illegal immigration is a big,
obviously area where the Trump administration is focused and that
I think will have effects in the election integrity space,
as we've talked about the problem of non citizen voting
and non citizens on voter rolls. One thing, if they're listening,
I'd love to see the Trump administration do is investigate
the five oh one C three's and the nonprofits on
the left who benefit from nonprofit status but clearly funnel
money and other kinds of support toward Democrat candidates in
violation of nonprofit laws. So that's my I'll end with
that suggestion. There's plenty more. If you want to hear
more suggestions, read the pages of The Federalist absolutely.
Speaker 1: Every day and amen to that. All of these leftist
nonprofit groups, or so many of them, really are nothing more,
as we learned with Stacy Abraham, nothing more but funnelers
of cash into Democrat campaigns and initiatives. Thanks to my
guests today, really just a tremendous group of people, not
just reporters, but people el pronell Federalist Assignment Editor and
Election Integrity Team chief are exceptional reporter Sean Fleetwood, Beth Brellia,
Breonna Lyman, and Election Team content editor Mazie Jefferson. It
was a pleasure having a sit down, this sit down conversation,
and it's a real privilege to work with all you
great professionals. They're the members of the best damn election
integrity team in the country, and they joined us for
a conversation about election integrity and elections this year and
what we can expect in the critical midterms twenty twenty six.
You've been listening to another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour.
I'm Matt Kittle's senior elections correspondent at the Federalist. We'll
be back soon with more. Until then, stay lovers of
freedom and anxious for the fray
Speaker 2: Where've been out walk