♪

guest: they're both designed to basically drag election control into washington. my organization opposes both of them starting with the basic fact that they amount to a washington takeover of elections that have been run by state since the constitution was put in place. that was the expectation of the founders. it will never be perfect, but it is the best system in the world and the state learn from one another. that goes away if either of these two bills were to pass into law. that is the intent, that those who are advancing these speak very openly about how washington needs to step in to stop the states from running these elections themselves. the most recent form of the hysteria is because of election reform laws that have been passed in a few state in the

last year. i would note that if you just look at hr one, it has been introduced in one form or another for years and years and years in very much the same form. this is not new because of 20/20. it is not new because of the election reforms that a few states have done in the last year. this is a long-standing effort by the most left-wing part of the democrat party for a washington takeover of elections. that is not good for america. the elements of the bills, getting rid of voter id, registering noncitizens to vote, making it legal effectively for them to vote in our elections, these are things that americans when they understand they are in the bill, they don't agree with it. they don't agree with. on the other side -- host: keep going. ken: if you take the politics out of elections if you can imagine such a thing. and by that i mean the

administration of elections. and you talk to 100 random americans about what they think make up the good elements of a well-run election, we overwhelmingly agree that you have to prove who you say you are. even vice president harris said that last summer in an interview which means voter identification. which means voting in person or early voting. people agree that you should have transparency. ordinary citizens should be able to see the process from beginning to end. there is overwhelming agreement that we should know who are on our voter rolls. it's one of the weakest parts of the entire system and every state is the low quality of the maintenance of the voter rolls. many states are doing it. it is being done in some places on a bipartisan basis which is

better for america. and in large part, because of the 2020 election, the two sides, politically, have tended to line up. and this has become more partisan then i wish it were. hod laws, you mentioned hr one. senators mansion and senator amy klobuchar came forward with a compromise called the freedom to vote act and that is what president biden has been pushing this week. the freedom to vote act adopts a different approach of voter id. it requires any state with a voter id requirement to accept any form of id accepted in west virginia including utility bills and bank statements. voters would have to vote in a process similar to west virginia.

what about the compromise? ken: that is washington dictating to the states. exhibit a of that example. when major league baseball was fighting with georgia when georgia passed the election reform law and they move the all-star game to denver, one of the minority owners can blackwell of the cincinnati reds pointed out to the commissioner, if i ordered tickets to the baseball game and i show up with my utility bill that will call, you won't give me the tickets. those on the left today, they seemed very comfortable mandating that you show your papers including health papers, not just identification, to go to a restaurant. and we all know minorities have

gotten the shots at a lower rate and i hear no complaints or concerns about the loss of access for minorities. real identification that is verifiable and understandable in each state like a driver's license though not exclusively so is much more appropriate. a photo id is a real id. anybody can fake a utility bill or a bank statement. they don't have security features that government forms of identification has. every state that requires real identification, photo identification, provides it for free. that's the way it should be. i strongly support that. and it is an appropriate access element. the fact of the matter is that americans of every stripe, every color, every partisanship agree that voter identification including a photo is appropriate to require across-the-board in

america. so why is it just the radical left of the political world insist on watering down that requirement? host: i want our viewers to join in on the conversation. phone lines are on the screen. we are talking with ken cuccinelli, former deputy secretary for homeland security the trump administration. he's the former virginia attorney general and served from 2010 to 2014. you heard the president and democrats argue that the state laws that have been enacted after the 2020 election suppress and subvert the vote because of who they say gets to count the vote. are there any state laws that you think have gone too far?

ken: i can't think of any in the last year which is what i assume you are referring to because that is the target of the president's attacks. you have seen a banning of private money coming into government to essentially take over the government function of running elections. 10 states have banned that. i can't believe the other 40 have not. it's like being allowed to pay the referee in your basketball game. it's crazy. those have been among the more controversial items. cleaning up the voter rolls, knocking dead people off the voter rolls. that is a federal requirement as well. there are voter role maintenance requirements if i remember correctly.

the help america vote act. and those have not been followed by most states whether they are red or blue. the narrative attacks you are hearing, jim crow two point oh, even the washington post, no bastion of the right, gave for pinocchio's to the president for the assertions that he made. and he did it again in georgia this last week. he doubled down even though the liberal washington post has said it is a lie. it is completely untrue. for people old enough to remember actual segregation, i know virginia's history. virginia and other states used the law to try to keep lack citizens from voting. that is a real history that we have to be sensitive to and distill on the books with section two of the voting rights act. it is illegal under federal law

and it can be prosecuted and should be where it occurs. and it does still occur here and there. it's not just southern states. it's appropriate the voting rights act applies everywhere. what is not appropriate is the attempt to require states to get permission from federal bureaucrats before making any change to those election laws. the narrative attack that comes from the left of voter suppression and so forth, it goes all the way back to the early 2000's. this is not a new ad hominem attack but that is what it is. it gets weaker and weaker every year as voting is made easier than ever before. as you and i are talking, it is easier to register and easier to vote for every legal american voter today than it has ever been in american history. and that isn't changing.

we are improving systems in some states so that you can rely on and see what's happening. it's not an accident to the organized nation that leaders called the election transparency initiative. our goal is transparency because we believe if people from both sides, whoever wins and whoever loses, and maybe three sides and some races -- if they can see everything happening, they can have more confidence in the outcome. we have seen increases in transparency whether it is audits which are sometimes controversial. it's good to think in terms of future elections instead of past elections. you want things to work well in the 2024 election, let's say wisconsin, a perennial swing state. we don't know who is going to be in that race. we don't know the outcome. by putting these things in place beforehand, they are as if

someone is re-fighting an election. that is not the goal of these election reforms. 2020 is behind us and it is time to look forward together as americans. host: elbert in chicago, democrat caller. caller: good morning. i just wanted to mention that while you are on here talking about the democrats assault on state's rights, georgia right now has purged all of its black members from the county election boards. they did not do this in 1961, they did this in 2021.

so this is why the government has to get involved in these elections because states are abusing their rights. ken: so the assertion made is not accurate. but let's pretend that that hypothetical played out. and that georgia knocked all of the black members off of the electoral boards off of those boards. section two of the voting rights act which attorney general merrick garland made very we are that he is very ready to be aggressive about prosecuting, would be triggered. that would be clear voting rights act. that is the law today. it is still in full force and effect. the only thing that doesn't exist that some on the left would like to see is a process

called preclearance. in chicago, they did not deal with preclearance where albert lives. but in virginia, we did. that meant every single change to anything in our election system. literally if we move a precinct from a local school to a local theater, it had to be approved by federal bureaucrats. what they did with that is every opportunity they got to hold a change over our head became an opportunity on their part to negotiate how the system worked to try to control what went on in the state rather than simply make sure that we want to discriminating. that is part of the goal of the amendments to the voting rights act. you mentioned hr one. that would be hr four, the john lewis voting rights act he had the purpose of that bill is to reinstate this entire structure for preclearance. not just for southern states but the whole country. host: i want to read an editorial.

georgia is among the states that effectively allow state lawmakers always under the control of one party or the other to appoint a hand-picked board that can take control of local elections in the event of a controversy or questionable activity. that is dangerous and undemocratic. the law shortens early voting and reduces the number, visibility of, and accessibility of drop boxes. restricting voter access disadvantages black voters. your response? ken: it is true that right now, republicans control the house, senate, and governorship in georgia. but there is nothing that says that will always be the way things are in georgia. you don't have to go back to far for that not to be the case. and if you look around the country, if similar programs are implemented, we have many split

states. north carolina, pennsylvania, wisconsin, michigan. and there are no guarantees that either party will retain control. in most states in america. in virginia, we just saw kratz lose control of the house of delegates in the 2021 election and a republican became governor instead of a democrat but there is still a democrat state senate. it varies from state to state. i would note the complaint about early voting. if you look at the northeastern states, georgia has more early voting than delaware, the president's home state. then new jersey, which the mainstream media lauded whitten -- when they established nine days of early voting. georgia has 15. the more early voting you have, the more difficult transparency is. the more difficult chain of custody of the ballot is. the longer you stretch that timeout, the more opportunities there are for problems. in most problems are in the form

of incompetence, not in the form of cheating. but when you create systems where those problems exist, cheating can be hidden. in the issue of drop boxes, i would note that we did not have drop boxes in america before 2020. drop boxes are a terrible idea. they are difficult to secure and oversee. even the mayor of philadelphia broke the law in how they used their drop boxes. his wife went and dropped the ballots off. you can only drop your own ballot off. drop boxes tend to be linked to ballot harvesting.

the ability to put pressure on people to vote the way the collector wants them to vote rather than independently how they might vote on their own. a few different things referenced. i would suggest leaving any drop boxes out is an element of insecurity. georgia has much more early voting then most of the states in the northeast. that is the usual comparison because at the federal level, that tends to be where the senators are complaining about it. i was with senator blumenthal of connecticut who was complaining about georgia shortening early voting days and i asked him why connecticut has zero. he was a little bit stymied by getting asked a question by his witness. early voting does not equal access. even expert witnesses call it convenience voting. it is for convenience.

i think there would be a lot of agreement to make election day a federal holiday. i think that is something the left and the right might agree on to make election day as accessible as possible. i'm not suggesting that we would ever get rid of all early voting, but the less there is of it, to offer people what they need to accommodate their schedules is the most appropriate balance between accessibility early and securing elections. and this is all without even touching mail-in voting. host: grand junction, colorado. republican. caller: the main part of my question is about the people that have passed away. how do you determine that they have passed away and they are no longer eligible to vote? there was a gentleman, an attorney-at-law from nevada, i believe.

back in 2020. and he brought this up and i wrote down the statistics he was trying to prove in front of congress. and he said at least 1500 dead people voted according to the social security death records. and he went through a list of statistics and swore in front of congress that what his research showed is that there were some election violations in nevada. i listed a bunch of them and there are just too many to mention to you. how do you verify that people are citizens? how do you verify that they are voting ok and still alive? or they got their vote in before they passed away? maybe they passed away a day later or an hour later.

ken: let's start with the last question because that does happen. one of the things that can happen with early voting is that john doe votes on october 1, dies on october 15, and ballots get counted on november 3. most state laws indicate that you have to be alive on election day for your vote to count. the practical answer is that for that kind of a tight window, i'm not aware of any state gearing out who those people are right now. you can look at georgia and you will find hundreds of people in a similar situation. you mentioned nevada. i have to pronounce it correctly. and it's a challenge. you mentioned the social security administration database. that is a commonplace state governments look to confirm death.

the real question is, how often do they do it? do they actually remove them from the voter rolls? the public interest law firm led by christian adams is suing michigan to remove thousands and thousands of dead people from their roles where they have literally attached page after page of obituary and records of folks dying. their local election officials simply refuse to remove them? why is this important. names that are on the roles that are latent, that aren't active, can be used by cheaters to vote not in person. it is one of the biggest problems with security in every state of the country, the lack

of the data quality of the voter rolls. it's a tremendous weak point. the social security administration is one place that governments look to identify death. their own departments of vital statistics. typically, there is some expectation that that will be checked frequently. looking for names of people that passed away. in most states, that does not happen regularly. and when it does, they are very reluctant to remove those dead folks from the voter rolls. that is a real problem when it comes to the potential to perpetrate fraud. an even tougher question about how you identify citizenship. really the only way this happens systematically as when you register to vote, checking a box that says i am a u.s. citizen. i was just in arizona and efforts have been made by that democrat secretary of state hobbs to not make that statement have legal consequences.

what do i mean by that? we have all signed government forms that we attested a firm that we are u.s. citizen under penalty of perjury. she removed all of those penalties to eliminate the potential for criminal liability for such folks even though you have to be a citizen to vote in federal elections. by law. many on the left are taking steps to make it impossible to police that. and it isn't a citizenship database. our database and the federal government can help identify people that are here and not citizens. that is sort of proving a negative. only two states, nevada and texas, have ever taken advantage of the federal database that deals with people, for instance, seeking citizenship. i ran america's legal agency and we keep up that database and participate in that.

but if someone is not in that database, it does not mean that they are a citizen. people can be here illegally and they don't get picked up. the only real way to do it is to ask for things like birth certificates or citizenship. for those who have become naturalized citizens. only a few states really police that. host, judy in delaware, independent. caller: hello. ken: good morning, judy. caller: in delaware, we seem to be doing fine with how we vote and the lack of early voting and in person voting. it seems to work for us and i don't understand why everyone has been up in arms with some of

the southern states that want this massive early voting when it just causes convolution and confusion. like you said, maybe it's just for convenience. the state of delaware is actually able to do it. so there's many other states, jersey and connecticut. we all do it. i don't know why there is an issue here. also, to comment on the individual that was talking about the 800,000 green cardholders voting in new york. why is that a problem? the problem is that it is against the constitution. am i not correct? ken: you are correct -- well, federal law as it relates to federal elections, you are correct. but states are giving the

authority, if they choose to, to let whoever they want vote. the federal government doesn't govern that. this people are not supposed to vote in federal elections. one of the problems how do i is, how do you really segregate those folks out from the federal election if you are going to let 800,000 noncitizens onto the voter rolls. we have not seen elections run so smoothly and people are so on top of things that they can distinguish between a u.s. citizen and a noncitizens that are supposedly legitimately on the voter role. i'm under no illusions that those 800,000 people in new york city are somehow voting in federal elections. i think that is a fiction. you're seeing people challenge it on a constitutional basis as an equal protection violation. among other challenges. judy, i think we will hear more on that subject because new york

city took the action they did. there are small towns in vermont and other parts of the country that have voted to give noncitizens the ability to participate in their local elections. new york city is the big kahuna, in this whole discussion. they are the 800 pound gorilla. and i think it will certainly draw litigation. the very question you raise, is this constitutional under the federal constitution will be addressed. i don't know if it will go all the way to the supreme court anytime soon. i do think this question has been raised to a level never before seen by new york city. one of the reactions you are seeing is that in many states, legislators are stepping for their shot. this could happen anywhere. they are amending the state constitution to bar it. under any and all circumstance does.

there is a counter debate and a counter argument being made in different states. this will develop over the next two years with the timing of litigation. and how that typically goes, two to three years. more on early voting and the fact that delaware doesn't have a and systems seem to run fine anyway. one of the most significant advocates, probably the most experienced advocate against early voting in america is the now retiring secretary of state of new hampshire. the longest serving secretary of state perhaps in american history, bill gardner. bill gardner is a democrat who has been elected by their legislature. that is how they do it in new hampshire. both democrat and republican legislatures, no matter which party had control, have elected him to continue for the simple reason.