week. just looking at one thing after the other. i will be following pretty closely how these confirmation hearings kickoff, whether we see any republicans who decide to say no. early on it seem like there was a push backs, but lately it seems like many republicans are willing to give trump the people that he wants in these top positions. host: donald trump entre social just about one hour ago orting elon musk saying at this election not been won by dollar trump, civilization would be lost. the latest from elon musk on this trip social page. you can get the latest on axios.com. >> "washington journal" continues. host: kevin kosar joins us now, a senior fellow at the american enterprise institute and host with the understanding congress

podcast, joining us to help understand today's electoral vote counting and certification process. just explain what is going to happen in this joint session today at 1:00 p.m. eastern. guest: today is an important day. it is the second to last step in the process we use in america to select a president. the process began in november with the general election. after that, we had the electoral college and now we move to the process by which congress seems from the states their reports of who voted for which candidate and congress proceeds to count them out loud and officially declare who won. this is a rare joint session of congress, so we will see the house intercession today around 1:00 and then we will see senators file into the chamber and join their legislative

colleagues. then they will open the envelopes and see who each state voted for and officially announce the results. host: are there any surprises in this process? guest: hopefully there will not be any surprises. as we saw four years ago, anything is possible. we have a recent history where there for equally are members of congress who want to object to particular states' electoral votes. they want to claim that there is something wrong with them and therefore that congress should consider not actually counting them, but i am hoping we are not going to see any of that today. host: these envelopes you talk about being opened, explain their path to capitol hill today. guest: we have a decentralized system. it is not the federal government who mends our elections and

man's polling places or anything like that. this is a state driven process, so states conduct elections. it is they who select individuals who represent the public and convene in the electoral college. at the end of the process, you get generation of a certificate of ascertainment. for those of you on twitter, i tweeted out and tag washington journal on a couple examples of what the certificates look like, where the governor and other officials sign and say here are the individuals who have received our state's electoral votes. >> how do they get to capitol hill and what happens to them after they are counted? guest: multiple copies have to be produced by demand of the constitution. some have to go directly to the u.s. senate. that is because the vice

president, also the president of the senate, is the person who presides over the counting, so another set of copies also goes to the national archives, where they will be kept along with our other precious historical records. host: who are the other key players? guest: you need a speaker of the house to get the session up and running. fortunately, late last week we brought -- we were able to do that. you also need everybody in congress to show up and participate in the process. this is a sort of formality. we already know mr. trump and mr. vance won the presidential and vice torres, but it is a ceremony in which we officially deem the race done and decided and except the victors.

host: the certificate of ascertainment, there are a couple examples we can show to viewers, including an elaborate one from the state of ohio signed by who in the state of ohio? guest: you usually see a governor's signature. that is one of the things the electoral count act was adopted to do. we have a constitution that lays out the basic process, saying congress has to come to this joint session and has to take state electors and count them up and declare who won, but the question is whereto the certificates come from and how do you know they are official? more than a century ago, the electoral count act was adopted after the contested 1876 election because they were certificates sent in. in 2020, we also saw that, unofficial certificates being

sent in claiming that mr. trump had won when he had not. host: could that happen today? guest: it could, but i have not heard reports of alternate certificates being submitted. host: what happened with the electoral count act in the wake of the events of january 6, 2021? guest: congress woke up and realize this very old law written in antique and stilted language needed to be updated. there have been scholars for 30 years saying, congress, this law is poorly written. the words can be difficult for a modern audience to understand and easily exploited by lawyers. unfortunately, congress did not take action and it took the events of january 6, 2021 to spark action. congress did good work. it was bipartisan work. you had multiple groups working

on new drafts to amend the statute and the changes were significant. they basically took rules around the process of clarifying who won the presidency and tightened them up, so it was harder for crafty attorneys and partisan politicians to manipulative the process and try to throw it off the rails. one thing we will see today in the chamber is that they attempt to pause the proceedings by objecting to the state electoral vote, it is going to have to be a higher threshold. it used to be you only needed one representative and one senator to pause the counting and force the joint session to split into the house and senate debating separately. now you need to get 1/5 of all senators to agree to object and 1/5 of all members of the house. there are also limited grounds

on which you can object. you can have them limit objections to two technical things, which i will not elaborate on, but you can no longer get away with saying i have suspicion that there is fraud here and derail the process. host: did that happen in the past? guest: most certainly. one of the things i put out this morning are examples of democrats and republicans rising and making allegations. in 2016, i have video of representative jim mcgovern of massachusetts, democrat, saying i object to this particular state's electoral slate, i believe alabama, because they were engaged in propaganda and misinformation so we cannot trust those results. he was joined by a number of other democrats that year. obviously republicans did their own thing in 2021 and more than

any in history got up and raise objections to various electoral slates. host: our objections limited to modern political history or was this happening in the 19th century and previous elections? guest: the first modern example was in 1960 where we had this weird situation where hawaii declared richard nixon the victor over john f. kennedy and the official certification was sent to congress but in the course of doing a recount they declared that kennedy had beaten nixon. in the meantime, the democrat electors had sent in a separate certificate to congress and richard nixon was the sitting vice president and had to preside over the chamber, so he had multiple certifications in his hand and was a little before old for a time on what to do about it. ultimately, it was decreed that hawaii's votes would go to mr.

kennedy, but it was -- disputes go way back and it was the toxicity and intractability of the 1876 dispute which was just paralyzing for a while and ultimately to trying to develop rules of the electoral count act that would clarify who wins and what was an adequate basis for objecting. host: this image of a sitting vice president counting votes in an election they lost and announcing the winner and that they themselves have lost an election -- is it a uniquely american thing that happens? guest: as far as i know. it is an episodic unremarkable thing. we are going to have to see today ms. harris, our vice president, standing before the

chamber and going through this process. previously, in 2016, we had vice president biden atop the chamber and he was fighting off various objections from democrats and saying this is not an order, you do not have somebody in the senate who agrees with you so we cannot entertain your complaint about the process. i think it is a healthy thing. host: kevin kosar is our guest, senior fellow at the american enterprise institute. his podcast is understanding congress. it is set to take place in the joint session today. you can watch on c-span. for the next 30 minutes, we are taking more phone calls if you have questions or comments about this process. (202) 748-8000 for democrats to call in. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. kevin kosar, as folks are

calling in, do you think the events of january 6, 2021 changed this process or how this day is viewed in america? guest: i think previously it was something that was largely done on autopilot. your average american certainly paid little attention to it, some exceptions being the dedicated folks who watch c-span and are engaged deeply in our civic life. 2020 one just shattered that and created a sense of anxiety about something that could be trusted to come off well could go off the rails. to make a broader point about that date and what has happened since then, law is something we used to try to coordinate ourselves as human beings.

we try to pass a law and say this is what you can do and cannot do. on a whole range of topics. we cannot all remember what laws are enforced all the time. we cannot understand fully what laws were adopted for, what the people who wrote them end. when congress did not pay close attention to the electoral count act and kind of let it sit for 140 years, everybody sort of forgot why we had the process and how it was supposed to work. it took that terrible day four years ago to remind us we have to follow it and be faithful to it. and we have to have a shared understanding of why we do it and how. host: this is harold in rosewood heights in illinois, line for democrats. guest: i do not know why we need

an electoral college, but that is a different thing. i was wondering, however long we have been doing this, how may times people have voted against certification of the votes and i would like to know if maybe -- i have been listening to the program all morning. everybody confused about what happened four years ago. they beat have that trial that trump has been putting off and instead of going after the king -- we already have all the ponds. there are a bunch in prison already. and we cannot get the king because they have already certified that he is king and cannot be touched. why don't we go after the senators and house representatives who voted against it after they hid underneath the capital because of the riot and they knew that it was wrong? mitch mcconnell came out the next day and said it was wrong

and why we cannot get them and have it televised on tv to where they will public can take it in and then we will have the truth. because in court you cannot just come up with some kind of theory. you have to have facts. that is what the country is lacking, facts. guest: let me speak to the issue of when congress has voted on the -- voted to reject or not reject electoral slates. he saw that in 2021 with the house and senate separated to vote on at least two state electoral slates and in each case they voted to accept them by overwhelming majorities. we also saw it in 2005. i believe it was 2005 where

george w. bush was reelected. there was an allegation raised that ohio's electoral votes were in some way corrupted and voting machines had been rigged by republicans, so democrats in the chamber objected and we had a democratic representative and senator so they had to break and go separately debate ohio. that ohio slate was excepted. the votes were not rejected and then there was the peculiar 1960 situation where you had two different certificates and they had to decide it. the good news is we have not had an instance where a state electoral slate has been thrown out and therefore votes have been taken away from a presidential candidate or vice president candidate and the result of the election corrupted. host: this is mike in ohio, independent. good morning. caller: as an independent, i

feel free to comment on both parties as well as to criticize them. i will start withcomplimen -- i will start with compliments. i have to compliment the capitol police. he risked his life. he ran away from where the voting was taking place. he was the ultimate patriot that day. he put his life on the line. the republican who was a patriot that day was none other than mike pence. those are my two heroes. i believe mike pence -- before he was elected vice president. the only one not to do that was a guy named donald trump. i have to criticize the democrats for trying to impeach him a second time after that. what they should have done instead is tell the republicans

we will not prosecute him. we will not put him in prison, but we need to pass a law that says nobody can run for president unless they reveal their tax returns. if they did not pay their taxes, they can pay with ao and move on. that is a conflict of interest. donald trump has traveled around the globe many times and met many world leaders. if anybody needs to have his taxes examined, it would be donald trump. host: any thoughts on tax returns and presidents? guest: not so much on tax returns and presidents. there is legitimate concern about knowing whether officials are in hock to foreign powers or something like that. it might be manipulable, but to go back to the caller's initial point, i would like to mention some of the heroes on capitol hill on january 6, 2021 where the congressional staff, people

who were involved in helping congress carry off this process and to also critically protected the state electoral certificates. today when you watch on c-span, you will see these boxes being carried in by staff and these boxes contain the official certificate. those certificates could have ended up lost or trashed or burned when protesters stormed the capital and congressional staff rose to the moment and protected them last time around. host: a questiofr dan in pennsylvania. what role does the supreme court have in certifying an election of the president of the united states? guest: thankfully, they have no direct and immediate role. under the modified updated electoral count act, it is possible that a dispute at the state level about certification

of the election can be appealed to the federal courts and could get its way to the supreme court, but if the process is working properly the supreme court stays on the sidelines. >> a call or a minute ago said mike pence is one of his heroes from that day. this is from politico magazine, some new reporting about interactions between al gore and mike pence. this is the first two paragraphs or so. last summer at the memorial service, two former vice president had a conversation. al gore thanked mike pence, according to people close to both men, in an interaction never reported for his actions at the capitol the day it was attacked by a mob. mike pence said something surprising in response. he suggested to al gore that he

had done what he had done on january 6 2021 in part because what he had seen as a newly sworn in member of congress on january 6, 2001. he had witnessed a vice president stand up to pressure from his own party to defy the constitution even though doing so i definition meant personal defeat. i never forgot it, mike pence said to al gore. you do not know how much that means, al gore said, coming from you. guest: it is terrific. thank you for sharing that with me. it speaks to a real truth about congress, which is that you do have these moments where members all the time rise above naked partisan self-interest and just play by the rules or do the right thing and when they do that you hope it rubs off on some other members. and that everybody can lift their game. there is nothing wrong with

competing fiercely and disagreeing and debating, but the rules are the rules. for this representative government scheme to work, we all have to be willing to play by the rules. host: about 20 minutes left with kevin kosar this morning. this is ray in syracuse, republican. caller: a previous caller brought up what he thought the solution should be part of the solution on this january 6 issue , that the democrats should present the facts in front of congress and my first thought is they will never do that. the reason is because that would require them to also put the democrat bad things they did and what they did to cause january 6

and it would be significant. it will probably be more illegal and against the rules then what the republicans may have done and another caller after that asked about should people who want to run for president divulge financial information in detail so they do not actually -- they are not allowed to run if they have these problems with how they are there money? the same principle would follow with that. the democrats would never agree to that because they also are doing illegal and nearly illegal things to make their money and they are using their office just like the republicans are to get things that they want. they would not want to have to divulge their bad things, so it would never be allowed. they will never do that. that is why they do not do it

now. you almost never see i did bad, you did bad. it is so rare that i cannot remember the last time that happened. host: what do you want to pick up on? guest: first, the concern about corruption in congress is eternal. we have just never had a moment in history where voters could feel confident congress was not in some ways on the take. 150 years ago, corruption was brazen. you had lobbyists and plutocrats walking onto the floor congress and simply hand cash or stock certificates to members of congress. now it is more subtle with campaign donations and the like. and concerns about using insider information and legislators using that to trade stocks. so try to get to a fully

trustworthy congress is something we keep pursuing but it is not easy. as for the discussion around january 6, 2021, it does not feel to me like democrats or republicans are for the most part in a place where they can have a super conversation about it even four years later the emotions are still raw. narratives are conflicting. hopefully we will get to a point where we can have an honest conversation at some point. host: gregory is next out of massachusetts, democrat. caller: my biggest concern about the certification -- he brought up a point about 2016 in alabama. one member had concerns about interference and i want to say i feel 90% of republicans have not taken the information about the

recent trial of alexander smirnov and i suggest all of them who believe democrats are lying look up those facts. and also i believe it is disgraceful they feel democrats are lying more. if you go to trump's financial scheme, he was clearly working with putin in russia in 2016. just the lies told about the "biden crime family" and everything, you have to look up this alexander smirnov trial and come to grips with who you feel is really lying. guest: we are at a weird point in history of where your average

american is not particularly politically polarized. they tend to look at each party with a little suspicion and often hold their nose and vote for one or the other when they have to, but there is a portion of the population divided into a kind of redshirts versus blue shirts and they have a remarkable ability to look at reality and filter fact in ways that fit preconceived notions and it makes it difficult to have political conversations about serious issues. we have seen that with january 6, 2021. we have seen it with allegations of corruption. it seems like we cannot focus on the facts. everything gets run through these kind of prefab mindsets that are partisan and motivated to reason in a way that is self-justifying. host: the snow is starting to

come down here in washington, d.c.. you can almost not see the capitol dome and we are a block and a half away here in our studios. a question from if you were saying, as a new yorker i feel disenfsed, like my vote does not count. has there been debate about reforming the process? guest: there has been long-standing complaint about the electoral college, that it is a vehicle for having americans vote as states as opposed to voting as individuals . we have seen instances way personal be elected president. they have electoral votes to win , more than 200 70 and yet they lost the possible -- popular vote and that creates this a

dense and the minds of many who say we should be moving to something like a direct national vote. whether you want to do that or not do that, the obvious challenge is to amend the constitution, which is a complex process and folks who live in a less populous state, whether delaware or south dakota, are going to have strong feelings about that. more broadly, the feeling of disenfranchisement -- we have seen a lot of state-level reform action trying to open up primary elections so you have multiple parties running candidates and voters feeling like they can vote for a third or fourth or fifth party candidate and that they will not be wasting their vote and there is the hopes among some reformers that that sort of thing will