the court in brnovich pulled in the other direction. mr. rosenberg: we said in our written testimony that a basic construction is remedial statutes must be construed broadly. justice alito and the majority in brnovich did the opposite. rep. ross: my second question goes to the attempt to freeze in time what elections were in 1982 by d supreme court. i find that -- the supreme court. i find that particularly upsetting because we have made so much progress on election laws. congress has expanded ways to enhance the franchise, particularly with the help america vote act. do you think there is any justification for saying congress has not indicated that we want to move forward with helping america vote that the supreme court could hang its hat on? for any of the members. yes, mr. morales-doyle. mr. morales-doyle: the north carolina legislator was targeting african-american voters with surgical decision. that involved a number of laws rolling back early voting, getting rid of same-day registration that did not exist in 1982. and yet, the court o

but the brnovich decision guideposts is opposite. it repeatedly says voting laws could not be justified even when a state could not point to any fraud in its state. congress should reverse the statutory decision through carefully crafted legislation test as congress has done in the past approving voting rights renew and extensions. legislation will have to consider the scope of congress's power especially because the statements in brnovich appears like a threat to find new voting legislation unconstitutional. thank you for your time. i look forward to the opportunity to answer questions. sen. cornyn: thank you very much professor hasen. ,i want to begin perhaps by asking you -- and in chair blumenthal: i want to begin perhaps by asking you about the chief justice's role. because i know that you are familiar with the history here. in 1982, john roberts was an attorney and special assistant in president reagan's department of justice. it was the same year that congress was debating amending section two to correct a problematic supreme

the new section under dashed and tell brnovich came about.rnovich involved regulations that control who could handleoua ballot and were you voted and those are regulations that have been around for quite some time. >> thank you very much. i will start since they chairman and ranking member -- i'm sorry we have another one. excusexc me for faster hasen. we are in a hybrid fashion and i didn't realize we had forgotten you. >> thank you very much. ranking member cruz members of the subcommittee thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today to speak about the supreme court's recent decision inry brnovich versus te nasa committee a case where outside of the con text of reducing in. the opinion by justice emil alito for the conservative majority ignores the relevancy of the voting rights act and ford's congress's intent. let me begin with some history. a component of the act that congress passed in 1965 called section 5 required dates and localities with a history of racial discrimination in voting to as the h o is department of justice

attorney general brnovich. >> it is staggering.st the biden administration. they literally have decriminalized what is going on at the border by stopping deportations. they have incentivized people coming over here and housing folks in detention center in scottsdale, arizona down the street from where i'm sitting now. they've created these incentives. as a result of the open border policy all these people are flooding in. i spoke about this before. we'll have nearly 2 million people expected more coming across the border illegally. you mentioned the numbers. yes. >> harris: i just want to slide this in as we end out the hour here. how do we deal with that many people? you know, we are a nation of legal immigration and what you are talking about is not -- it doesn't comport with what we should be doing. how do we deal with this? >> it is not fair to anyone. you mentioned the numbers. the biden administration. in one month it's like the all the people in augusta, georgia. the cartels are enriching themselves. it is a problem and i am

all right, arizona attorney general mark brnovich, thank you very much. china's affairs as he reconfirms the mission to take back taiwan. gordon chang is up next with more of chairman xi's hostile message a. hostile message. ♪ sometimes you wanna go ♪ ♪ where everybody knows your name ♪ ♪♪ ♪ and they're always glad you came ♪ welcome back, america. it sure is good to see you. ok everyone, our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy. whoo hoo! ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals, now introducing ensure complete! with 30 grams of protein. well, well, well. look at you. you mastered the master bath. you created your own style. and you - yes, you! turned a sourdough starter into a sourdough finisher. so when you learn your chronic dry eye is actually caused by reduced tear production due to inflammation you take it on, by talking to your eyecare professional about restasis®... which may help you make more of your own tears with continued use twice a day, every day. restasis® helps increase your eye's natural ability to pro

arizona attorney general mark brnovich. thank you very much. chinese president xi, warning the west to stay out of china's affairs as he reconfirms the mission to take back taiwan. gordon chang is up next with more on chairman xi's hostile message. we have to be able to repair the enamel on a daily basis. with pronamel repair toothpaste, we can help actively repair enamel in its weakened state. it's innovative. my go to toothpaste is going to be pronamel repair. it started with an idea... and became a new tradition. this is financial security. and lincoln financial solutions will help you get there as you plan, protect and retire. maria: are we going to see a policy change as relates to china from this biden administration and stop telling people not to invest in these companies that are tied to the chinese military, expanding their opportunity to acquire america? >> well, look, if this -- the otherly ins of the china -- origins of the china virus have not woken america up yet i don't know what will. the chinese want to become the world reserve

arizona attorney general mark brnovich. thank you very much.he west to stay out of china's affairs as he reconfirms the mission to take back taiwan. gordon chang is up next with more on chairman xi's hostile message. a lot of people think dealing with copd is a walk in the park. if i have something to help me breathe better, everything will be fun and nice. but i still have bad days flare-ups (coughs), which can permanently damage my lungs. my lungs need protection against flare-ups. so it's time to get real. because in the real world our lungs deserves the real protection of breztri. breztri gives you better breathing symptom improvement, and flare-up protection. it's the first and only copd medicine proven to reduce flare-ups by 52% breztri won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. it is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. don't take breztri more than prescribed. breztri may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if wor

and then we have the most recent supreme court decision brnovich v. the d.n.c. and alito says making voting inconvenient doesn't make access unequal. well, let's just explain to this justice who apparently knows nothing about how voting really works. when you make it inconvenient for a targeted group, you make access unequal. it's exactly the intent of these laws is to make access unequal. elena kagan in her dissent said equal chance to participate in our democracy, referring to the 1965 voting rights act, that law of all laws should never be diminished by this court. section 2 is the most recent section attacked by the supreme court. and it bars procedures that result in denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the united states to vote on a count of race or color. one of the issues was from arizona, a situation where you have no easy places to drop off your ballot in large native american reservations. so by banning the ability for people to collect ballots and drop them off, you essentially make it extraordinarily difficult for this targeted commu

that was outside the office of arizona's republican attorney general mark brnovich.otesting outside his office because of his role in promoting and defending new voting rights restrictions in arizona, including all the way up to the united states supreme court. also, arizona's new rules about how the state's elections will be conducted in the future, new rules explicitly designed to make sure officials from the democratic party can't play a top role in election administration in arizona anymore. only republicans will be allowed to do that from here on out. of those folks protesting outside attorney general's brnovich's office in arizona, nine of them were arrested. it wasn't -- they weren't violent or anything. it was civil disobedience. a planned act, stepped into the street with the understanding that police would warn them and then arrest them, technically, for blocking traffic. but nine people put themselves forward for arrest that day to dramatize their case, for voting rights in arizona and against what the attorney general had done there to throttle them. that

i just want to add -- >> it was interesting for me to look at the brnovich case involving donor disclosures, not only because you had the same split among the justices, but also because of the different way the court looked at state interests versus minority interests. you saw the donor disclosure case, the board took a broad reading -- the court broad reading and said, you have never based any investigation at all on these schedule b's that have been filed, you've got other ways we can investigate conflicts of interest or fraud in charities, and the burden of these donors -- a subset of donors -- people who contributed $5,000 or more to charity and that may can -- that may include all of us here, but not a typical donor to a nonprofit. ed is not like the naacp case where rank-and-file was a very small group of better off donors we are talking about. you can track that to the greg: -- to the brnovich case where justice alito said you do not need an instance of fraud to ever have happened for the state to be justified in step two prevented from happening. he was not looking for evidence that

that's something arizona attorney general mark brnovich argued. >> we want to make sure everyone has the ability to exercise the franchise and make sure everyone has confidence in the process, and they respd e e dec undermines the voting rights act because laws like arizona's can be a barrier to minority voting. in a statement, president biden said he was deeply disappointed in the decision and called on congress to pass new legislation. at the same time, his justice department is suing one state -- georgia -- saying its new voting law intentionally discriminates against black voters. the decision today may make that lawsuit more difficult, and as states pass more restrictive voting laws, the message from the justices is clear -- >> this is another sign from the supreme court that these are going to be quintessential political judgments. left to the political branches of the states. it's going to be increasingly difficult to challenge them in court. >>> turning to the latest on the coronavirus, the cdc says the number of new covid infections in the u.s. rose 10% this week as the high

i just want to add -- >> it was interesting for me to look at the brnovich case involving donor disclosures, not only because you had the same split among the justices, but also because of the different way the court looked at state interests versus minority interests. you saw the donor disclosure case, the board took a broad reading -- the court broad reading and said, you have never based any investigation at all on these schedule b's that have been filed, you've got other ways we can investigate conflicts of interest or fraud in charities, and the burden of these donors -- a subset of donors -- people who contributed $5,000 or more to charity and that may can -- that may include all of us here, but not a typical donor to a nonprofit. ed is not like the naacp case where rank-and-file was a very small group of better off donors we are talking about. you can track that to the greg: -- to the brnovich case where justice alito said you do not need an instance of fraud to ever have happened for the state to be justified in step two prevented from happening. he was not looking for evidence that

>> well, i'm very proud of the fact that i personally order that case brnovich vs. the dnc. measures. the state court said ensure the integrity of their elections and confidence in their results. the left is cherry picking states. they don't go amp states connect cut, new york, all that's northeast states that actually have more restrictive laws arizona does. so, really, todd, they are being so hypocritical and i want electric actually inconsistent. if the democrats want to do something about voter and franchising more voters go after democratic strongholds with more restrictive rules and less early voting than states like arizona? jillian: well, to the point that you just made, go ahead and take a listen to what democratic panelists have to say about this. >> now you are forcing minorities to decide whether or not they are going to invest money, gas money to get to the polling places that are now further away. >> what kind of dirty tricks is being played about closing polls, swishing where you are supposed to be, it's kind of shocking a lot of people don't have the same acc

one of the most prominent to replace him is attorney general mark brnovich. doug ducey is, secretary of state katie hawes on the republican side is. gaynor face a long list of gop hopefuls in the primary. he is in the audience today as is former local news anchor carrie headache who is also run -- lake who is also running. their presence here a signal to the importance of former president trump's endorsement. not here, outgoing governor doocy. he and the former president have long shared a tension-filled relationship when the president announced the -- [inaudible] trump has taunted doocy is ever since when he announced last month he will not run for senate. fox nation will live stream former president trump's speech at 6 p.m. eastern time, and we will be here. arthel? arthel: all right. we will look forward to your reporting, alicia acuna, in phoenix. thank you. >> if we continue as republicans to go out, do a good job, point out the differences between the two parties, try and, try and do good things for the american people, politics take care of itself. goo

we cite in the shelby cheney case in 2013, we side in the case that just came down the brnovich caset a week ago. it essentially said, we got the voting rights act in 2013, they're now saying, in the case that -- they're most giving the lower courts a guidepost for ways in which you can sanction that which will republican legislators are doing. the -- not only for the results of particular things that they upheld in arizona, those to provisions, but the language that is in the majority opinion is truly frightening. and i am really concerned about what we see coming and our supreme court. it's one of the reasons why democrats, progressives, people who care about this country have to focus on state and local elections. these gerrymandering that just lakers are the ones producing these laws at the supreme court. it is appalling. not only in regards to elections, in regards to reproductive rights, a whole range of other things. so we need to be focused on state and local elections. we need to be involved in making sure that we use the state courts whenever we can as opposed to the federa

rights advancement act, and undo the really destructive effect of those supreme court decisions, brnovichhelby, that have so undermined democracy. i'm hopeful, but only time can tell. >> senator richard blumental thank you for joining us tonight, we really appreciate it. >> thank you. >> thank you. coming up, give sacha baron cohen a speech condemning facebook a year before the trump mob attacked the capital. we'll hear some of that speech next and will discuss the story about how facebook contributed to trumpism with the authors of the new book an ugly truth, in side facebook's battle for domination. domination power your thing... above everything? you decide fast... is never fast enough. you put muscle over matter. and you make horsepower... a superpower. ♪ welcome to the brotherhood of muscle. (customer) hi? (burke) ♪ happy anniversary. (customer) for what? (burke) every year you're with us, you get fifty dollars toward your home deductible. it's a policy perk for being a farmers customer. (customer) do i have to do anything? (burke) nothing. (customer) nothing? (burke) nothing. (custo

and then we have the most recent supreme court decision brnovich v. the d.n.c. alito says making voting inconvenient doesn't make access unequal. well, let's just explain to this justice who apparently knows nothing about how voting really works. when you make it inconvenient for a targeted group, you make access unequal. it's exactly the intent of these laws is to make access unequal. elena kagan in her dissent said equal chance to participate in our democracy, referring to the 1965 voting rights act, that law of all laws should never be diminished by this court. section 2 is the most recent section attacked by the supreme court. and it bars procedures that result in denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the united states to vote on a count of race or color. one of the issues was from arizona, a situation where you have no easy places to drop off your ballot in large native american reservations. so by banning the ability for people to collect ballots and drop them off, you essentially make it extraordinarily difficult for this targeted community

the supreme court's most recent antidemocracy decision in the byrne -- brnovich case which eviscerated a key protection of the voting rights act will only embolden these attacks. but so far in this senate, our republican colleagues have turned a blind eye, choosing to be complicit in the outright assault on our democracy. senate republicans have refused to even open a debate on voting rights legislation. instead they prefer to abuse the filibuster to enable republican legislative leaders across the country to continue their assault. mr. president, our democracy is on the line. the unfinished work of john lewis remains. we must summon the courage to act. that's why i'm committed to passing the john lewis voting rights advancement act which will protect the right to vote for all people. i can think of no more fitting way to honor the memory of a man who chose our democracy as the struggle of his lifetime. mr. president, when i was first elected california secretary of state to serve as the chief elections officer for the state of california, i sought out the counsel of john lewis. for mo

brnovich. >> public servants have no more sacred. this case before the court establishing a clear and constitutional test to allow states to meet these imperatives. it requires substantial disparate impact that is caused by the challenge law. they are common sense and commonplace. requiring in-person voters ensures that they can vote in local races and helps officials monitor for fraud. including political operatives protects against voter coercion and protects. arizona urges this court to have a clear and workable test that allows states to properly regulate their elections. >> we believe our test is the most and when you look at what a substantial impact would be and we must analyze that. it has to rise to a level of the denial or abridgement of the right to vote and opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. section 2 is to snuff out intentional discrimination when it is used as a proxy. this court looks at harris. at that point, the court determined that 10% was something that was substantial number. >> there is no excuse,

brnovich. >> public servants have no more sacred duty than protecting the people's right to vote, while maintaining confidence in the react -- election results. this case before the court establishing a clear and constitutional test to allow states to meet these imperatives. it requires substantial disparate impact that is caused by the challenge law. the laws issued here are valid they are common sense and under this test. they are common sense and commonplace. requiring in-person voters to cast their voters -- cast about that assigned precincts ensures that they can vote in local races and helps officials monitor for fraud. allowing collection by third parties including political operatives protects against voter coercion and protects. arizona urges this court to have a clear and workable test that allows states to properly regulate their elections. i will be happy to take questions. >> your approach requires that the burden should be substantial . where'd you get that in the statutory language >> section two prevents -- any sort of infancy will look at -- what if the provision result

wednesday, declares that the attorney general, currently in position republicaned by a republican mark brnovich the supreme court up holding arizona's voter restriction, it seems that the voter suppression laws and to change the arbiters of the vote count are steamrolling through unchecked through 48 states. i wonder if you think that democrats in washington are taking that threat to our democracy seriously enough? >> well, i think what -- what these -- we're seeing with the power grabs across the country and this supreme court decision just continues to underline the urgency with which the federal government must act to enact protections for voters across the country, to continue to protect their access to the ballot because they are being chipped away by all of these moves, and now by the supreme court decision yesterday. >> there's been a lot of reporting. we've asked you about your security and safety, and we always want to hear if there's any update. but there's news it is taking a real toll and that the untry's- -- one of our blessings is people willing to volunteer to help to work in our

this case, better brnovich v. d. involved voter suppression laws passed to discourage minorities from voting. why would anybody want to do that? because today's republican party has settled on voter suppression as its path to power. across the country you see it, republican-controlled legislatures have swiveled in unison to pass voter suppression laws in their states all at once, as if on signal. and guess what? dark money groups have been caught taking credit for this coordinated swivel, describe how they worked through local sentinels, describing how they drafted the legislation for the local republicans and describing how they were able to do so surreptitiously. the voter suppression fixation of republicans in all these state legislative bodies is quite plainly a coordinated activity, and equally plainly it has the dark money apparatus behind them. here's another example. after a "washington post" expose blew his cover, the operative at the center of the dark money court-packing scheme vacated that role. the artic

here is arizona attorney general mark brnovich on "sunday morning futures." >> an independent judiciaryhey try to do is essentially change the rules in the middle of the game. reporter: essentially the supreme court ruled that arizona is justified, it is righteous in that law. what does it mean for other states? will the justice department push forward? i spoke to an official said it is important to make sure that doj sees that voters are not being disenfranchised. right now no pending litigation. that could always change. ashley: indeed it could. david, thank you very much. appreciate that. >>> now this, house majority whip jim clyburn is changing his tune on voter i.d. laws. let's bring in lauren simonetti. what is he saying. >> we have the sound to prove it that he could absolutely support a voter i.d. requirement proposed by senator manchin. listen here on cnn. >> what i first registered to vote as a 41-year-old back then, 18-year-olds could not vote, i got a voter registration card and i always possessed that voter registration card when i go to vote. and that is voter i.d. we are

ainsley: mark brnovich weighed in on this attorney general from arizona. >> 2 million people expectede are at a crisis. we have already reached that point. the fact now that they are going to rescind that i think going to be throwing more fuel, more gasoline ton a fire that's burning. i think it's dangerous for our country. really i think it exposes the inconsistency of the biden administration when it comes to public health because on the one hand they say they are so worried about covid but they are packing people into these, you know, detention centers. and at the same time they are creating a situation to allow more and more people to come in regardless of the health consequences. brian: i think he is running for higher office. he has been very aggressive on this. pete: now, why might the biden administration be so focused on this issue all the time using covid and talking about covid even as we are moving past it and we should be looking at, i don't know, inflation, crime, and open border. victor davis hanson as he often does was on ingraham last night and revealed here's why. >>

holder and brnovich v. democrat national committee -- has in effect eviscerated -- more bluntly, gutted -- two key sections, five and two, of thattest having rights act. and now we have -- of that voting rights act. and nod we have the opportunity -- in fact, we have the obstacles -- we have the obligation to make sure that the memory and cause of john lewis in advancing votes rights is upheld. we have that obligation not for ourselves but for the country, which is why john lewis fought so hard and so well. today state legislatures are taking advantage of the gaps and defects opened by those two supreme court decisions to attack america's right to vote. what we're seeing is the greatest assault on voting rights in the history of this country, maybe with the exception of jim crow. now, i know some have called these laws a second jim crow. it may be the son of jim crow or the nephew or niece of jim crow. but the goal is the same -- suppression of voting rights, discriminating against individuals who have that