Speaker 1: I helped we enjoy this segment every week as much
Speaker 1: as we do. And I know I've got some friends
Speaker 1: and we get textures who really like Lan heat Chen,
Speaker 1: and it's it's it's good a conversation. You're gonna hear
Speaker 1: about politics anywhere, always with him. You know, I don't
Speaker 1: mind hearing my side trumpeted a lot. It feels good,
Speaker 1: but it's also great to get straight down the middle.
Speaker 1: Here's what's happening, here's how to understand it. That's why
Speaker 1: we enjoy Lan hea Chen so much. Lan He's David
Speaker 1: and Diane Stephy, fellow in American Public Policy Studies at
Speaker 1: the Uber Institution and the director of Domestic Policy Studies
Speaker 1: at the university. Neither of one of us could hope
Speaker 1: to get into Stanford University, lan He, how are you, sir?
Speaker 1: I'm doing well. Happy Friday. Maybe some sort of sympathy admission,
Speaker 1: you know, listen, he's not very bright, but he tries hard.
Speaker 1: Something like that. At the end of this at the
Speaker 1: end of this conversation, Joe said, over his dead body.
Speaker 1: But at the end of this conversation, I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: ask for your quick take. Since Caitlyn Jenders announced she's
Speaker 1: running for governor of California. But at the end of
Speaker 1: the conversation we'll get to that. Hey, Lonnie, did you
Speaker 1: happen to see the opinion piece in the Wall Street
Speaker 1: Journal today by Kimberly Straussel about um voter turnout and
Speaker 1: all that. I haven't seen it yet. No, I barely
Speaker 1: got through my coffee, you guys. So the Secretary of
Speaker 1: State in New Hampshire, Gardner, who maybe you know, or
Speaker 1: you don't if you're super into politics. He's a highly
Speaker 1: respected Democrat. He's the longest serving secretary of state in
Speaker 1: the entire country. And he testified in front of Congress
Speaker 1: yesterday as they were having a big talk about voting regulations.
Speaker 1: You know, we all know, right, the whole Georgia thing,
Speaker 1: and Georgia changed some of those and people went crazy
Speaker 1: and boycott and moving Major League Baseball and then the
Speaker 1: voter suppression, voter suppression and whatnot. And this highly respected,
Speaker 1: longtime Democrat was there testifying on the Republicans invited him
Speaker 1: to say, these these everything's bad records. From what you're saying,
Speaker 1: there's very little voter suppression going on. What the hell
Speaker 1: are you talking about? And New Hampshire has some of
Speaker 1: the most restrictive voting regulations in the state, partially because
Speaker 1: it's in their state constitution. You have to show up
Speaker 1: that day, one of the reasons you have they don't
Speaker 1: have early voting. One other reasons is because their constitution
Speaker 1: mandates that they release the results that night. You have
Speaker 1: to show an I D though, because they want to
Speaker 1: be very sure that and they regularly have among the
Speaker 1: highest turnout, if not the highest turnout in the entire
Speaker 1: country and the state of California, and that's one of
Speaker 1: the reasons I bring it up. Nancy Pelosi was blasting
Speaker 1: New Hampshire and other states who require I D s
Speaker 1: and that sort of thing, and want to and and
Speaker 1: and and are pushing for HR one, the federal government
Speaker 1: takeover of federal elections, and she wants to impose the
Speaker 1: California model. And he pointed out Mr Gardner from New
Speaker 1: Hampshire that California, in terms of turnout in the last
Speaker 1: four presidential elections, ranked forty nine. So a lot of
Speaker 1: the we're gonna make it easier to vote um rules
Speaker 1: that are put out there, you get lower vertic voter
Speaker 1: turnout in some of the more restrictive states have higher
Speaker 1: I just thought that was fascinating. What are your thoughts
Speaker 1: and all of that, and what do you what do
Speaker 1: you think the sweet spot would be? What should we do? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I mean this is a really tricky set of issues
Speaker 1: because on the one hand, you know, I think there
Speaker 1: are certain common sense things about voting that you could
Speaker 1: get a majority, a strong majority of Democrats and Republicans
Speaker 1: and independence to nod their heads and say yeah, we
Speaker 1: should do that. For example, you know, the idea of saying, look,
Speaker 1: we want to have an election process that people feel secure, right,
Speaker 1: they feel like if they vote, that vote is actually
Speaker 1: the person who cast it as the person who claimed
Speaker 1: to have cast it, that that vote was securely handled
Speaker 1: and counted in the right way and accounted for in
Speaker 1: the right way. You know, I think most people would say, yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: that makes a lot of sense. And then you say, look,
Speaker 1: can we create a mechanism where, in the context of
Speaker 1: it being a secure vote people have an opportunity to
Speaker 1: vote in different kinds of ways. Some people want to
Speaker 1: vote by mail, absolutely they should. Some people want to
Speaker 1: vote in person early yes, And if you want to
Speaker 1: vote on election day, yes, you know, so this idea
Speaker 1: that somehow we have to go and polarize this one
Speaker 1: way or the other, you know, as Nanci Pelosi said, no, look,
Speaker 1: we gotta have one way. We do it across the country,
Speaker 1: regardless of the fact that, you know, there's reasons why
Speaker 1: different states have different election laws and rules. A state
Speaker 1: that's predominantly rural, for example, has to have a different
Speaker 1: set of rules potentially in a different set of requirements
Speaker 1: then a state that's more urban, right, and so there
Speaker 1: are reasons why, in their infinite wisdom, the founders said, look, fundamentally,
Speaker 1: when you look at something like an election, we want
Speaker 1: that election to be primarily driven by the conditions of
Speaker 1: what's happening locally in states, in localities, etcetera. So this
Speaker 1: doesn't have to be a polarized issue. Unfortunately, it's become
Speaker 1: a really polarized issue, and I think that's frustrating to
Speaker 1: those of us who look at this and say, can
Speaker 1: we have a little common sense here? You know, for example,
Speaker 1: I'll just give one more example and I'll shut up.
Speaker 1: In the Georgia law, there was a lot of um
Speaker 1: noise made by particularly I mean, Biden amplified this. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: he said, oh, if you're waiting in line, you can't
Speaker 1: get water. They want people to to to go without water,
Speaker 1: waiting in line to vote when it's ninety degrees. Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, how often is it ninety degrees in November?
Speaker 1: But putting that aside for a moment, Georgia law actually
Speaker 1: put putting aside from what the Georgia law actually said
Speaker 1: is if you are not a poll worker, you cannot
Speaker 1: give people who are waiting in line water. And that's
Speaker 1: a very reasonable thing if you think about it. Why
Speaker 1: do we why do we prohibit electioneering? Right? Why do
Speaker 1: we prohibit people from going up while you're waiting in line,
Speaker 1: harassing you about voting for one person or another. Those
Speaker 1: kinds of laws prohibiting electioneering are very common. We have
Speaker 1: them in California, they have them in New York. What
Speaker 1: the Georgia law actually said is if you are not
Speaker 1: a poll worker, you cannot set up a water stand.
Speaker 1: But in fact, if you are a poll worker, you
Speaker 1: can put out a water dispenser and people can get
Speaker 1: water on their own. So how did that become? You know,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, we're going to dehydrate people while
Speaker 1: they're voting. And that's Just an example of how polarized
Speaker 1: we've become is we can't even have a reasonable dialogue
Speaker 1: with the law actually says, I know that's what he
Speaker 1: kept me from voting many times. As as a fad
Speaker 1: to get too thirsty. It happens bones. It's like when
Speaker 1: you climb mount has a reverst and the bones of
Speaker 1: the dead climbers and it I like that at the polls.
Speaker 1: So a lot of this is being driven on both
Speaker 1: sides by I think an unproven theory. Uh, Democrats want
Speaker 1: higher turnout, Republicans would would like to have a lower turnout,
Speaker 1: with the belief that the higher to turn out, the
Speaker 1: more Democrats vote that that is there any fact behind that? No,
Speaker 1: I mean, look, I think we have seen high turnout
Speaker 1: elections that have benefited Republicans. We've seen high turnout elect
Speaker 1: since that have benefited Democrats and vice versa. So I
Speaker 1: don't think it's correct to say that high turnout always
Speaker 1: hurts Republicans. Uh, that's not borne out empirically. Uh. If
Speaker 1: you've got a good, strong Republican candidate that's able to
Speaker 1: speak not just to Republican voters, but to voters across
Speaker 1: the the ideological spectrum, you will see high turnout supporting
Speaker 1: Republican candidate. So I don't think it's the king. Well,
Speaker 1: then this is a heck of a topic that's so
Speaker 1: benefic So, so the the theory driving the whole thing
Speaker 1: that higher turnout leads to more Democrats not true. The
Speaker 1: fact that you'll get better turn out by loosening up
Speaker 1: the the the ways to vote is not true according
Speaker 1: to all Gardners stats yesterday. So the whole thing is
Speaker 1: a stupid conversation. It would see, right, Lana he Chant
Speaker 1: is with the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Lane, is there
Speaker 1: any chance that the district of Columbia will become a state?
Speaker 1: To why or why not? Um? The only way it
Speaker 1: becomes a state is if Democrats decide in the Senate
Speaker 1: they're going to get rid of the filibuster and and
Speaker 1: and they're going to completely change the way that essentially
Speaker 1: the Senate operates, and and they're gonna jam it through
Speaker 1: on a party line vote. Now, even then the question is,
Speaker 1: could a would a moderate like Senator Joe Mansion of
Speaker 1: West Virginia, would he go for something like that? Would
Speaker 1: he be supportive of something like that? Or does this
Speaker 1: end up becoming some part of package package. You know,
Speaker 1: some have suggested, for example, well, yeah, d C would
Speaker 1: become a state, but at the same time, you've got
Speaker 1: some Republicans that want Puerto Rico to become a state,
Speaker 1: so you figure out a way to package DC statehood
Speaker 1: with Puerto Rico statehood. I don't know how this is
Speaker 1: all going to turn out, but in terms of it
Speaker 1: just being a straight up DC statehood bill passing the Senate,
Speaker 1: I still think it's less likely than more likely. Again,
Speaker 1: unless the Democrats really want to burn you burn it
Speaker 1: all down and say we're gonna get rid of the
Speaker 1: filibuster entirely. George Will thinks that the twenty three Amendments
Speaker 1: UH forbids it, and that there's no chance they're going
Speaker 1: to overturn the twenty three Amendment or repeal it, and
Speaker 1: so they're trying to pass and as he describes it,
Speaker 1: almost inscrutable process to legislatively transferred to the new state
Speaker 1: the electoral votes constitutionally given to the district, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 1: It's not even doable constitutionally. Yeah, I mean, and I
Speaker 1: think certainly you would see the legislation um litigated on
Speaker 1: on those grounds, you would see people saying, look, essentially,
Speaker 1: this is not a uh, this is not a constitutional thing.
Speaker 1: To do it again it it sort of goes against
Speaker 1: what the intent of of that part of the Constitution was.
Speaker 1: And you know, the politics are very fraught, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously we all know the district of Columbia is extremely
Speaker 1: tilted politically, and that automatically brings it from the vein
Speaker 1: of a conversation about what is best for you know,
Speaker 1: the United States into what is best for my party
Speaker 1: or for the other party, and that, unfortunately, if never
Speaker 1: a fun conversation. Can the Biden White House continue to
Speaker 1: claim that we've got a real problem with racist white
Speaker 1: cops shooting people of color despite the facts. Can they
Speaker 1: continue to do that and win politically or is it
Speaker 1: going to hurt them? Well? Look, I mean I think
Speaker 1: there's a few things here. First of all, the that
Speaker 1: what the Biden team wanted to do essentially was to
Speaker 1: take this entire situation and and and in some ways
Speaker 1: employ it to talk about the need for certain kinds
Speaker 1: of police reforms. By the way, there's actually a bipartisan
Speaker 1: consensus if you look last summer, Senator Tim Scott of
Speaker 1: South Carolina actually put forward legislation that would have helped
Speaker 1: to reform some of these police practices, would have studied
Speaker 1: and tried to figure out what are best practices, what
Speaker 1: are things that we can distribute as information, not as requirements,
Speaker 1: but as guidance, so that police departments around the country
Speaker 1: could do a better job essentially of enforcing the laws
Speaker 1: and making sure that they were doing it in a
Speaker 1: way that was fair to everybody. So there's actually a
Speaker 1: bipartisan consensus around the need to do some of these reforms.
Speaker 1: The problem, again, guys, just like we talked about with
Speaker 1: the previous subject, is when you try to employ it
Speaker 1: for political gain. That's when it runs into problems. That's
Speaker 1: when the two sides can't get together. If we would
Speaker 1: only get together and say, okay, what does the Tim
Speaker 1: Scott Bill say as a starting point, what do the
Speaker 1: Democrats want? Can we get together and find common ground
Speaker 1: and agree that there are certain things that you know,
Speaker 1: certain practices, certain things that are happening we don't want
Speaker 1: to be happening, but there are other things that are
Speaker 1: strictly for political show. Can we separate the political show
Speaker 1: from the actual substance. If we could manage to do that,
Speaker 1: we could actually come up with legislation in some of
Speaker 1: these areas. So that's the frustrating part about this is
Speaker 1: that it's not like like Republicans are saying no, no no, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: no reform at all in this space, and Democrats are
Speaker 1: arguing no, no no, no, we're the only ones. I've got
Speaker 1: the answer to this. In fact, if you look at it,
Speaker 1: there are actually some ways we can get together. They
Speaker 1: can be some common ground. And that's where I wish
Speaker 1: we would start instead of trying to use this to
Speaker 1: to one's own political advantage, boring who's the good guy,
Speaker 1: who's the bad guy? See the world if Tim, if
Speaker 1: Tim Scott runs for president and maybe against Kamala Harris,
Speaker 1: who's the one who stopped him from being able to
Speaker 1: get this going? That that topic could be huge. She
Speaker 1: wouldn't even meet speaking of people running for office. And
Speaker 1: if this is if this is a non starter, I mean,
Speaker 1: if there's no chance, then we don't need to discuss
Speaker 1: it for more than you here we are, right, Caitlyn
Speaker 1: Jenner officially announcing today she's running for governor of California.
Speaker 1: If you think she's got no shot and is not
Speaker 1: a player, then we won't discuss it. What are your thoughts. Look,
Speaker 1: I don't think that it's a non starter completely. And
Speaker 1: here's why. We all know how difficult it is to
Speaker 1: break through in California. It is, it is a big state,
Speaker 1: It has a lot of you know, massively expensive media markets.
Speaker 1: People are either tension is divided. And if we think
Speaker 1: back to the last week call, the only person who
Speaker 1: could have broken through was the one who ended up
Speaker 1: running and winning, and that was Arnold Schwarzenegger. And not
Speaker 1: to put Caitlyn Jenner Arnold Schwarzenegger in the same category.
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously there there there are differences in their candidacy,
Speaker 1: but the only there are a number of differences between
Speaker 1: Arnold Schwartzenegger and Caitlyn Jenner. True, it is very hard
Speaker 1: to break through. And if your theory of the cases
Speaker 1: you need something completely you know different, and some would
Speaker 1: argue outrageous, then that's what Caitlyn Jenner represents. So I
Speaker 1: know enough to know that you never say never in politics,
Speaker 1: and so look, I think I think this will this
Speaker 1: will make the recall much more interesting even than it
Speaker 1: would have been before. Let's put it that way. We're
Speaker 1: not friends anymore because you had Jack on now. David
Speaker 1: Stephy fellow, an American public policy Studies at the Hoover Institution,
Speaker 1: Director of Domestic Policy Studies at Stanford University lan he
Speaker 1: thanks a million for lending us a bit of your time.
Speaker 1: Always appreciated. Have a great weekend. Thank you. I actually
Speaker 1: don't think if I had to bet money, I don't
Speaker 1: think Gavin Usan is going to get recalled. So it's
Speaker 1: not gonna make any difference. No, there is no level
Speaker 1: of incompetence high enough to get a Democrat recalled in
Speaker 1: California anymore. The state is beyond saving. It is beyond hope.
Speaker 1: Abandoned ship, abandoned hope. All ye who enter here, art
Speaker 1: strong and Jetty