remembers him bursting into his office with a translator and a small posse of other arab students to lecture him about the war and why america is wrong about israel. israel turns out to be very important point in his radicalization more so than i would have thought. .. >> host: professor spencer

overton, in your books, "stealing democracy," what's the voting matrix about? >> guest: there's a movie, "matrix," and basically in that movie, computers are in control, but people think they are in control, but really computers are in control, and i was fascinated by unseen factors that control our live, invisible systems that control our live, and that's how it is really with regard to our election system. we don't think about it. we think that, you know, the people select the politicians, but actually, in fact, this matrix of election laws and systems and regulations, you know, they shape who gets legislated. they shape the policy in our country. they determine, or at least they shape, you know, the level of mercury in the air that we breathe, how many kids are in a classroom in the city of

detroit, so they have a huge impact that we don't always appreciate. >> host: and explain how that matrix of laws work. where do they start, and how far down do they go? >> guest: right. well, one unique thing about the united states is that, you know, we don't have a central system in terms of election laws. we've got over 4,000 different election system, and, you know, they all have different rules and laws and, you know, people who administer them, so there's not like one puppet master like a grand conspiracy. we got all these different system, and, you know, most people are familiar with the most common example of this which would be gerrymandering; right? where politicians draw districts that favor them. right now, congress is what? about a 14% or 15% approval rating, maybe lower than yet, and yet 85% of members of

congress are safe because they've drawn districts or state legislatures have drawn districts so those members are safe, and so that's the most blatant form, but when we talk about photo id procedures, when we talk about the placement of polling machines, a variety of other practices, regulations, that really shape outcomes and shape policies and winners and losers. >> host: who's michael berman? >> guest: michael berman handles redistricting in california. he's a democrat. his browr, howard berman, was a member of congress, and michael had an organization called bad campaigns here, and so it was his job to redraw the map in california, and so he did a couple things. one thing he did was his brother's district, he dropped it from 45% latino down to 31%

la latino so his brother was safe and didn't face a challenge in the democratic primary by a latino candidate. another thing he did was got democrats and republicans together to preserve incumbent power so in other words sometimes we see jeer remanders maning one party trying to draw lines to pick up as many seats as possible. in california in that particular year, basically the democrats got together with the republicans and they said, hey, let's not push for party gains. let's preserve our own seats here, and let's focus on incumbent jerry -- gerrymaner. >> host: what roles do computers play in the current

election system? is it a good role or not so good? >> guest: right. computers are a tool; right? i think they can be great, and they can also cause problems. now for redistricting and incumbents and people like michael beerman can do more than ever. they have more data. they can map things much more easily. before, people used to guess and estimate about, you know, the census and where people lived, and taking data from lists and putting it on a map and that kind of thing. now politicians are much more efficient in terms of drawing maps. on one hand, it empowers politicians. on the other hand, people can actually draw their own maps and see. i mean, there's a -- you know, technology democracytizes this.

there's voter registration modernization. the government registers people. you don't have to turn in a paper form, and it's not on the individual, and because it's automatic, more people are registered and more people end up voting so technology can be really a good in terms of increasing access, or it can be bad in terms of manipulating rules. >> host: do you trust electronic voting machines? >> guest: i think there's safeguards we need with electronic voting machines. we need certainly awe gets -- audits, we need backup systems. we need much more monitoring of private companies and venders. i think vegas, you know, they have electronic machines 234 terms of their gaming machine,

and there are people who are on the inside, you know, who ma nip plait some of the machines, people who have been caught and imprisoned; right? as a result they have procedures to check folks who work on these machines and so like a slot machine, and it's important we have structural checks to ensure that there's not tampering, fraud, or no problems. >> host: you use the word "but presentation" in your book -- word suppression" in your book. how are votes suppressed by the ways you described such as not registering everybody automatically, or is this -- we're talking illegal activities

to suppress voters? >> guest: you know, it is, you know, the question is what is illegal; right? it certainly is improper. i mean, if you're going to make a law that suppresses voters, it's not necessarily illegal, but it could be improper when we talk about a goal of government of by and for the people, so just for an example, i know that photo id -- it's really wildly popular. it seems reasonable. most people say, hey, you need an id in an airport to get on an airplane. 75% of americans agree that photo id is, you know, is a good thing. the problem though is that 20 million americans don't have a photo id, and, you know, that's more people than, you know, delaware, new mexico, and about 10 or 11 other states combined, so there's a lot of people who

don't have an id, and so that's a real problem. on the other side of the equation, there are -- there's not that much fraud autothere, and when i say "fraud," i mean poll fraud. we see absentee fraud opposed to at the poll fraud. in ohio there was a study, and they fount for every 2 million votes cast, there was one that was improper. one vote out of 2 million, so my biggest concern is that we're throwing the baby out because the baby has a drop of bath water on the baby's arm. we really need to figure out how to focus on that drop of bath water opposed to throwing the baby out. >> host: what about location of polling police places? why is that important? >> guest: a variety of factors. one is the location of polling places, but also like machine counts. how many machines are in a

polling place? it's important because we want everyone to be able to cast a vote, and if it's more difficult for certain people, certain populations, certain precincts to cast a vote, that's going to sthaip election outcomes. for example, tonya went to the polls in columbus, and before the election, election officials knew that they needed 5,000 machines, but they decided instead to only go with 3,000 machines. tonya goes to the polls. it takes her four hours that she waits in line to vote. after the vote, she goes to her mother's house who lives 234 a suburb. it took her mother 15 minutes to cast a ballot, and so, you know, we've got these disparities across the country in terms of voting and opportunities to vote, and, you know, doesn't take four hours at star bucks or four hours at mcdonalds. you know, those companies if you had to wait in line that long, they'd go out of business;

right? voting is at least as important as a frappachino or a quarter pounder and so. >> host: is there a racial aspect to your view as to voter suppression? >> guest: no. i think there's a racial aspect, but i don't think it's an mouse in terms of oh, we hate those people and therefore let's exclude them. i think that all politicians of all backgrounds are conscious of race because they connect it to performance. every african-american may not vote democratic, but most of them do. republicans might want to mobilize the voters, and others take a different tract; right? that's the most basic example, but i think it happens with regard to other groups as well. it's really the performance of the voters, and that is -- that, i think, motivates politicians much more than oh, we don't like

this group, and therefore, let's exclude them or let's be mean to them. i think that there's a very utilitarian or practical aspect of these rules. >> host: what's the history of election day, first tuesday of november, and how would you like to see that changed? >> guest: right. so the history goes back to agriculture society, an agricultural society as well as having church on sunday; right? this notion of everyone being able to get in town after the harvest, you know, in terms of november, and then after that sunday, having a day of travel on monday to get into cast a vote on tuesday. that is outdated. that's not no longer the way our society is organized, so, you know, i'm certainly comfortable with an extended period of

voting whether it's early voting, and i'm sensitive to the notion that campaigns peak; right? if you have a month or six weeks of voting periods, that might not work, but something like a week or week and a half would certainly be adequate. again, at least in my mind in terms of government for and by the people, the reason this is important is so that politicians can focus on issues rather than shaping turnout. shaping turnout means that we can avoid the issues, and we can just manipulate this electorat that benefits one party or the other to the extent politicians know there's maximum turnout, then the way that they can win is not to suppress voters and even to turn out particular voters, but to argue the merits, to argue the policy, to explain

where their position is -- why their position is better for the rest of the country. >> host: what about mandatory registration and mandatory voting? >> guest: right. i'm comfortable with the concept of automatically registering everyone like everyone may have to serve on a jury or pay taxes. i'm very comfortable with that, and one reason i'm incredibly comfortable with that is in the 2008 election, i think it was, about 70 million people didn't vote, and 80% of the people were unregistered, so registration is one of the biggest barriers to voting. also when we talk about things like purging people from voting rolls, talking about provisional ballots not counted or people not on the rolls, a lot of that is directly related to the registration problem. i'm very comfortable with voter registration modernization. in terms of mandatory voting, you know, it's really a

philosophical question, and other countries have mandatory voting like jury service or just like people have to serve in the military in terms of compulsory service. one problem with it isic we really -- i think we really have a culture of liberty here in this country, and so if we had mandatory voting, i certainly think we'd want to have none of the above options so that people could exercise it. politically, though, i don't know if it's realistic. i think a lot of people would resist it and so as opposed to going for something that's unrealistic, i think we should really focus on how do we make voting accessible to people so that as many people as possible participate. >> host: what do you teach here at george washington university? >> guest: voting rights, and campaign financing class. doing a lot in campaign

financing. we recently had an opinion by the supreme court striking down a public financing program in arizona, and my kind of new vision of campaign finance is that we shouldn't focus exclusively on preventing corruption, and we shouldn't focus exclusively on no rules and money and speech and spend as much as you want. i think what we should do is encourage participation by as many people as possible. i mean, we definitely have this norman voting that we want everybody to vote. why don't we have a similar norm in terms of money and politics where we want everyone to give a contribution. it doesn't have to be a $20,000 contribution. it can be a $10 or $15 contribution, but if more people participated in terms of the financing of campaigns, i think that politicians would be frankly less beholding to

particular larger cricketer -- contributor who now give the bulk of money politicians receive, so carrying this participation theme from voting into money and politics. >> host: well, here's the original cover of "stealing democracy," and then the paper back came out. why different covers? >> guest: you know, the publisher made the decision to change the cover. i actually like the very simple, you know, vote that is suppressed in terms of sending the message there, but, you know, frankly when you're an author you're flattered when the book goes to paper, and so i was just very happy with any cover; right? in terms of the paper. >> host: is the south still a problem at all when it comes to suppressing voter rights as it was back in the 60s, 50s? >> guest: well, there is a part of the voting rights act

called section v of the preclearance provision, and it applies to only certain states. many of the states are in the south, not all of them, and it also applies 20 particular counties in different places like michigan, california, and alaska, that kind of thing, and there's a national debate right now as to whether or not that's constitutional, whether that violates the federalism of those states, whether, you know, this is really a states issue and the federal government should get involved. we just had an anniversary of the voting rights act passage. i think that it's still an issue. you know, there's a question of is the south worse than other places; right? i think that's a legitimate questions, but this notion of a check on partisan officials and their changes, i think gets a good thing.

i think it's a good thing in part because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure better than a pound a cure. reviewing an election change before it's made is much less expensive than litigation after the fact, after you've had an election. it could be, you know, discriminatory or problematic. i think also what this review does is help all voters, not just voters of color because politicians are less likely to engage in shenanigans when they know it's going to be reviewed, so i'm very sensitive to the question whether or not this formula applies to only particular states is legitimate; right? it was set up in the 1960s. is that still the same formula? that's a legit ma question, but this question