Speaker 1: If you design, engineer, build, or maintain buildings in California,
Speaker 1: you can get free technical training, continuing education credits, and
Speaker 1: prepare for a range of certifications through pg n e
Speaker 1: S online classes. Enroll at PGE dot com slash training.
Speaker 1: Hey guys, I'm Kayleie Shore. On my podcast Too Much
Speaker 1: to Say. I share my thoughts on everything from music
Speaker 1: to Martini's, social media and social anxiety regrets to risky
Speaker 1: text and so much more. I have been known to
Speaker 1: read my literal diary entries on my show, and sometimes
Speaker 1: I do interviews with my crazy group of friends. So
Speaker 1: if you guys want to tune in, you can hear
Speaker 1: new episodes of Too Much to Say every Wednesday on
Speaker 1: the National Podcast Network, available on the I Heart Radio app,
Speaker 1: Apple podcast, or wherever you listen to him. Make sure
Speaker 1: to check out Drink Chance, your number one music podcast
Speaker 1: on the Black Effect Podcast Network. Host n O r
Speaker 1: E and d J E f N sat down with
Speaker 1: artists and icon Ya, which Vulture called one most significant interviews.
Speaker 1: I literally had to go like Danos and I don't
Speaker 1: want to have to be the villain. But when I
Speaker 1: went and did the Donda thing, he returned and anybody
Speaker 1: had to sit back and watch the real leader. Check
Speaker 1: out Drink Champ's conversation with Yea and many more legendary
Speaker 1: artists each and every Friday on the Heart Radio app,
Speaker 1: Apple podcast, or where ever you listen to your favorite shows.
Speaker 1: We've always said that this series is about so much
Speaker 1: more than just this election. As we've shown in our
Speaker 1: first four episodes, the voting issues of our past and
Speaker 1: how our country responds to them paved the way forward
Speaker 1: shaping future elections, including the history making moment we're living
Speaker 1: in today. But now here we are just days away
Speaker 1: from the presidential election, and I don't know about you,
Speaker 1: but I have severe asset indigestion. So before getting into
Speaker 1: our main interview today, I wanted to dive into some
Speaker 1: of this week's big election stories. So the good news,
Speaker 1: particularly for a show called Turnout, is that people are
Speaker 1: turning out to vote in droves. By this recording, Americans
Speaker 1: have cast over seventy one million early ballots, which is
Speaker 1: more than half of all ballots cast and the two
Speaker 1: thousand sixteen election people are mailing them in voting early
Speaker 1: making a plan for election day. It's so inspiring, I,
Speaker 1: for one called a lot of my friends to make
Speaker 1: sure they were getting their asses to the polls. I'm
Speaker 1: calling to see if you voted or you have a
Speaker 1: voting plan, Katherine, Yeah, calling to see if you voted
Speaker 1: already submitted by a mailing ballot. Good. But the rules
Speaker 1: about how and when those votes will be counted are
Speaker 1: the subject of a political tug of war in some
Speaker 1: key states, states like Wisconsin, where the Supreme Court had
Speaker 1: to step in with the decision on October in another
Speaker 1: major blow to Democrats, Wisconsin can't count mailed in ballots
Speaker 1: received after election day if it's not close. In Wisconsin,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. If it comes down like it did
Speaker 1: last time to tens of thousands of votes. This could
Speaker 1: very easily make up the difference between who ends up
Speaker 1: winning this election. The Wisconsin ruling is just the latest
Speaker 1: in a flurry of election year decisions that, rather than
Speaker 1: grant leeway because of the pandemic is Democrats argue, have
Speaker 1: mostly sided with Republicans keeping voting restrictions in place. Texas
Speaker 1: Supreme Court just issued a ruling essentially shutting the door
Speaker 1: on allowing all Texans to vote by mail during the
Speaker 1: coronavirus pandemic and the US Supreme Court blocked a lower
Speaker 1: court from allowing curbside voting in Alabama. Another change in
Speaker 1: the witness signature debate for South Carolina absentee ballot. There
Speaker 1: has been so much back and forth. Finally the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court ruled that those signatures are required, and there are
Speaker 1: more cases like these that could be affected by Judge
Speaker 1: Amy Coney Barrett's swift assent to the highest court in
Speaker 1: the land. This was a rigorous confirmation process, and I
Speaker 1: thank all of you, especially Leader McConnell and Chairman Graham,
Speaker 1: for helping me to navigate it. It's a privilege to
Speaker 1: be asked to serve my country in this office, and
Speaker 1: I stand here tonight truly honored and humbled. While it's
Speaker 1: true that this political tug of war has always happened
Speaker 1: as each party vised for power every election, this year
Speaker 1: is different. Mail in voting has surged this year as
Speaker 1: Americans seek to avoid crowds at polling places, even as
Speaker 1: Trump repeatedly claimed without evidence that it leads to voter fraud.
Speaker 1: Because the President of the United States has taken fears
Speaker 1: of voter fraud to a new level, a level that
Speaker 1: questions the integrity of the entire election process. This is
Speaker 1: going to be a fraud like you've never seen. Thousands
Speaker 1: of votes are gathered and they come in and they
Speaker 1: dumped in a location, and then all of a sudden
Speaker 1: you lose elections that you think you're gonna win. You know,
Speaker 1: so many years I've been watching elections and they say
Speaker 1: the projected winner or the winner of the election. I
Speaker 1: don't want to see that take place in a week
Speaker 1: after November third, or a month or frankly, with litigation
Speaker 1: and everything else, that can happen years, years, or you
Speaker 1: never even know who won the election. I'm Katie Kuric,
Speaker 1: and this is turnout. Can you or the White House
Speaker 1: staff where you camp anervide any evidence to back up
Speaker 1: your claim? The mail in voting is wife with fraud,
Speaker 1: like the example you gave the people work in your
Speaker 1: rooms filling out a false balance. And where's the evidence?
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of evidence, but will provide
Speaker 1: you with some, Okay, and there's evidence that's being compiled
Speaker 1: today on the podcast. An interview with an unlikely critic
Speaker 1: of President Trump. The president's rhetoric, unproven rhetoric, the fact
Speaker 1: that there is not sufficient evidence to show systemic fraud
Speaker 1: did flip the switch, because that's where your responsibility comes in.
Speaker 1: Benjamin Ginsburg is a top Republican election lawyer who just
Speaker 1: retired in August after thirty eight years and the GOP trenches.
Speaker 1: Now he's spending his time writing op eds, and one
Speaker 1: that got my attention back in September was a surprisingly
Speaker 1: blunt rebuke of the president's baseless claims that the electoral
Speaker 1: system is rigged. The sanctity of elections and making sure
Speaker 1: they're done properly should be of deep concern to everyone.
Speaker 1: It really is the foundation of the democracy. And for
Speaker 1: the forty years that I'd been working in Republican politics,
Speaker 1: I was either in a precinct or part of a
Speaker 1: sort of a roving lawyer team in a state for
Speaker 1: running a nationwide program where we were talking to people
Speaker 1: in polling places to see what the problems were. Republicans mean,
Speaker 1: probably back since the days of Tammany Hall and the
Speaker 1: big city machines have been suspicious of fraudulent elections in
Speaker 1: vote rating, so we've always looked for it. And every
Speaker 1: state law has provisions for poll watchers or election observers,
Speaker 1: and both parties should take full advantage of that, because
Speaker 1: it's very important to have your people in a polling
Speaker 1: place to look for problems, and so we've we've done that.
Speaker 1: Now there were sort of sporadic instances of fraud that
Speaker 1: came to light, but never nothing that would justify a
Speaker 1: president of the United States, really any candidate saying our
Speaker 1: elections are fraudulent and they're rigged and the only way
Speaker 1: I can lose is if they cheat, because they're simply
Speaker 1: is not evidence to support that, and so to say
Speaker 1: otherwise is completely destructive. So I think that this has
Speaker 1: brought us into new and in dangerous territory, and the
Speaker 1: fact that I had been a part of those programs
Speaker 1: for so many years meant that I thought I had
Speaker 1: a perspective on it. And what concerns you the most
Speaker 1: about the rhetoric we're hearing undermining our electoral process from
Speaker 1: the President of the United States himself, Well, you see
Speaker 1: it reflected in the polls this cycle, where a dangerously
Speaker 1: and shocking the high number of people say they're not
Speaker 1: sure that the election is going to be valid and
Speaker 1: the results accurate. And that's really a product of presidential
Speaker 1: rhetoric and certainly not a product of of any real evidence. Well,
Speaker 1: let me ask you this, to play devil's advocate, We've
Speaker 1: never had an election quite like this, obviously been in
Speaker 1: the midst of a of a pandemic with really unprecedented
Speaker 1: number of mail in ballots, and I'm curious if you
Speaker 1: think that that might provide fertile ground for the kind
Speaker 1: of election fraud that some people in the specifically in
Speaker 1: the Republican Party or warning us of. Well, first of all,
Speaker 1: I think there are two sides to the coin, and
Speaker 1: we should we should talk about that. So there is
Speaker 1: a huge difference between a rhetorical fusillade that elections are
Speaker 1: fraudulent or rigged and actually being able to show that
Speaker 1: in a way that would taint the results of an election.
Speaker 1: And rather than than talking at a rally or UH
Speaker 1: making threats in a tweet, you will really have to
Speaker 1: go precinct by precinct and find specific instances of fraud.
Speaker 1: They can find specific instances of fraud. It should be
Speaker 1: rooted out and UH and corrected. But to be able
Speaker 1: to actually throw the results of the election in doubt,
Speaker 1: there will have to be ballots that are called into questions. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't believe that there will be a specific number
Speaker 1: of individual ballots that can be called into question, and
Speaker 1: mass challenges have always been frowned upon in as a
Speaker 1: matter of law and in legal proceedings. So I think
Speaker 1: that UM feelings have been rebbed up to a much
Speaker 1: higher degree in this election. But I think the results
Speaker 1: in the casting and counting of it's themselves will will
Speaker 1: be done in a way that there will be verifiable
Speaker 1: results of the election. How can you assure listeners of
Speaker 1: that that the systems are in fact in place that
Speaker 1: will prevent and penalize any kind of voter fraud, even
Speaker 1: it's if it is in fact very sporadic. Well, I
Speaker 1: think that's I think it's true on a number of levels.
Speaker 1: First of all is that you can go back and
Speaker 1: look at instances of fraud that have been uncovered and prosecuted. UM.
Speaker 1: Rarely is it enough to overturn the results of the election,
Speaker 1: but sometimes. There was a congressional race in North Carolina
Speaker 1: in two thousand eighteen where there were illegalities found, so
Speaker 1: a new election was held. There have been elections in Paterson,
Speaker 1: New Jersey, UH in this past year where there was
Speaker 1: found to be systemic fraud, and that was correct that UM,
Speaker 1: but at the end of the day, I think people
Speaker 1: can take a degree of certitude knowing that their ballots
Speaker 1: are going to be counted in their community by their neighbors.
Speaker 1: The US system has over ten thousand five jurisdictions with
Speaker 1: with some degree of authority for the casting and counting
Speaker 1: of ballots. UH. In a normal year, over a million
Speaker 1: people will volunteer to be poll watchers. They are all
Speaker 1: people from your communities. And um I was co chair
Speaker 1: of a presidential commission, bipartisan commission back in two thousand,
Speaker 1: thirteen and fourteen, where we got to spend an extraordinary
Speaker 1: amount of time meeting the actual people from the communities
Speaker 1: on the state, county, UH and local levels who are
Speaker 1: responsible for conducting elections. And I take a great amount
Speaker 1: of solitude in in knowing how good those people are
Speaker 1: and how much they do care. Having said that, what
Speaker 1: was your reaction, Ben, when you started hearing Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: President Donald Trump and other high ranking Republicans start laying
Speaker 1: the groundwork for an all out assault on our democratic process. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that they laid the groundwork for an
Speaker 1: all out assault. I think they used irresponsible and regrettable rhetoric.
Speaker 1: But again, the groundwork for an assault would require challenging
Speaker 1: on a local level in a very granular fashion, and
Speaker 1: the battleground states, with the exception of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan,
Speaker 1: have all begun to process their absentee ballots already. The
Speaker 1: mail in votes that we've been reading are coming in
Speaker 1: in such heavy quantity. Uh. And there have not been
Speaker 1: those wide skill challenge so at least so far, that's
Speaker 1: been more rhetoric than reality. Hold that thought. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back after this short break. My name is Hannah,
Speaker 1: I'm Dan, I'm Ben, and we are Group Love. If
Speaker 1: you're dealing with stress or anxiety, or just need some help,
Speaker 1: cal Hope is here for all Californians with free mental
Speaker 1: health resources to help you navigate this uncertain time. Go
Speaker 1: to cal Hope dot org to live chat with one
Speaker 1: of their incredible listeners, or call their warmline at one
Speaker 1: three three three seven Hope. That's one three three one
Speaker 1: seven h O p e hopeless here in California. Adoption
Speaker 1: of teams from foster care is a topic not enough
Speaker 1: people know about, and we're here to change that. I'm
Speaker 1: April Dinuity, host of the new podcast Navigating Adoption Present
Speaker 1: to buy adopt us Kids. Each episode brings you compelling,
Speaker 1: real life adoption stories told by the families that lived them,
Speaker 1: with commentary from experts. Visit adopt us Kids dot org,
Speaker 1: slash podcast, or subscribe to Navigating Adoption presented by adopt
Speaker 1: us Kids, brought to you by the U. S. Department
Speaker 1: of Healthy Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and
Speaker 1: the ACT Council. Introduce the Bizita You're all Things Music,
Speaker 1: business and media podcast. Join me, Joe w Leski and
Speaker 1: my co host Colin McKay every Wednesday, where we've discussed
Speaker 1: the breaking news changing the music industry and what your
Speaker 1: favorite artists and creatives are up to. Collin, who's your
Speaker 1: favorite artist? Oh? You know? The track Factor, Demi Levado,
Speaker 1: Rana Grande, Captain be Part Snap Back to Reality eminem Style.
Speaker 1: Join music industry professionals, Joe and I as we pulled
Speaker 1: back the curtain of the successes and failures of the biz.
Speaker 1: You guys have been hanging out a while. What are
Speaker 1: they doing? Com I guess listening to an ad Sorry.
Speaker 1: Listen to new episodes of the biz Tape every Wednesday
Speaker 1: on the Nashville Podcast Network, available on I Heart Radio app,
Speaker 1: Apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Let's return
Speaker 1: to my interview with Republican election lawyer Ben Ginsburg. Let's
Speaker 1: talk about these legal battles. The r n C and
Speaker 1: the Trump reelection campaign, as you know, have doubled their
Speaker 1: legal budget to twenty million dollars. I think you called
Speaker 1: it a torrent of voting litigation already underway. What up
Speaker 1: with that, Ben? Well, So it's an interesting it's an
Speaker 1: interesting phenomenon, and I think you need to take a
Speaker 1: step back to appreciate. I in two thousand ten, Republicans
Speaker 1: did very well in the Obama mid terms and took
Speaker 1: control of the number of state legislators and won a
Speaker 1: number of governorships, and then increased that in in two
Speaker 1: thousand and twelve on the state and local level. That
Speaker 1: gave Republicans the ability to pass legislation that they felt
Speaker 1: gave them an advantage in the electoral context. And so
Speaker 1: they did pass any number of laws. Uh, the the
Speaker 1: Clinton forces and really much more of the Biden forces,
Speaker 1: decided that they would go to court to try and
Speaker 1: turned back those pieces of legislation that Republicans passed. Now,
Speaker 1: before we start clicking our tongues at the bad Republicans
Speaker 1: for doing that. Recognized that when Democrats won control of
Speaker 1: the Nevada legislature and governorship and the New Jersey legislature
Speaker 1: and governorship, they have now since two thousand and eighteen,
Speaker 1: passed the Democratic version of legislation that helps them in elections.
Speaker 1: So it's something that both parties do. The RNC sued
Speaker 1: the Democrats after they passed that legislation. The Republicans have
Speaker 1: been more successful in this past decade in winning legislatures,
Speaker 1: and so they have passed any number of laws that
Speaker 1: the Democrats don't like, and the Democrats have gone to court,
Speaker 1: both federal and state to try and redress it. Now
Speaker 1: that the shoe is a little bit on the other foot,
Speaker 1: after the two thousand and eighteen elections, Democrats have passed
Speaker 1: their bills and Republicans have gone to court. So the
Speaker 1: weight of the legislation is really because Republicans did better
Speaker 1: in elections earlier in the decade. Well, this seems pretty
Speaker 1: left up to me, Ben, I mean, why are these
Speaker 1: election laws so malleable depending on who's in power? Can they?
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess that's a that's our system of government.
Speaker 1: But it seems a little screwed up to me. Well,
Speaker 1: I you know, I think that they are policy choices
Speaker 1: that get made in legislation. It happens in laws involving elections.
Speaker 1: It certainly happens in laws involving taxes or the environment
Speaker 1: or any other issue that you want to choose. There
Speaker 1: are differences between the power the parties, and when one
Speaker 1: party gets in power, they have a tendency to want
Speaker 1: to pass their agenda. I get that, but voting should
Speaker 1: be sacrosant, saying don't you think, well, I think that
Speaker 1: there are there are disagreements in policy over elections. Republicans
Speaker 1: tend to fear fraud and Democrats tend to fear suppression.
Speaker 1: And in one of the other underlying phenomenons that's grown
Speaker 1: in the country over the last thirty years is polarization.
Speaker 1: So that uh, there are very few undecided voters at
Speaker 1: this point in an election. That means that each party's
Speaker 1: go to their base to try and energize their basis
Speaker 1: to come out and so the rhetoric and the foundational
Speaker 1: work that gets done reflects that. And that is what
Speaker 1: I think you're saying is bad. And you know that, Um,
Speaker 1: that's a much bigger phenomenon than just elections and voted.
Speaker 1: Do you believe that concern about voter fraud can inevitably
Speaker 1: lead to voter suppression. Well, I think that they are
Speaker 1: in some ways two sides of the same coin. And
Speaker 1: I think that not all the laws that are accused
Speaker 1: of being suppression are suppression. And as I've written, I
Speaker 1: think many of the charges about fraud or wrong. But
Speaker 1: I think unfortunately the fraud versus suppression narrative is creeped
Speaker 1: into the get out the vote plans for both parties,
Speaker 1: and as you try and energize your base with red
Speaker 1: nat rhetoric, which is what we do these days, on
Speaker 1: both sides, Republicans are gonna yell fraud, Democrats are gonna
Speaker 1: yell suppression. That probably does energize their base. But what
Speaker 1: I think you're rightly pointing to is what about people
Speaker 1: in the middle of the spectrum who are not hard partisans,
Speaker 1: who really kind of went away the candidates and the
Speaker 1: issues and vote one way or the other. They hear
Speaker 1: the loud decibels about fraud and suppression and think, wow,
Speaker 1: that's a hassle for me to go to the polls.
Speaker 1: So I'm not going to go to the polls. Can
Speaker 1: you give me an example of a Republican law, state
Speaker 1: law passed by a Republican controlled legislature regarding voting and
Speaker 1: one that might have been passed by a Democratic legislature.
Speaker 1: I well, I mean, let's let's take a look at
Speaker 1: at the date in which absentee ballots need to be
Speaker 1: received by a state. So the at least the cases
Speaker 1: that are going up to the Supreme Court are ones
Speaker 1: where Republicans voted to have all absentee ballots received in
Speaker 1: the polling place on election day. The current Democrats have
Speaker 1: been convinced that, uh, it is better really for them
Speaker 1: to get more votes in to be able to extend
Speaker 1: the deadlines on the receipt of absentee ballots. So any
Speaker 1: ballot postmarked by election day can be received three days,
Speaker 1: six days, twelve days after an election. So a Republican
Speaker 1: legislature would pass election day receipt and a Democratic legislature
Speaker 1: has passed some days afterwards. If there is so little fraud,
Speaker 1: why is the Republican party passing all these laws preventing fraud?
Speaker 1: If if experience tells us that there is very little fraud,
Speaker 1: so the the credibility of our elections also depends on
Speaker 1: their appearance. In other words, can voters take confidence that's
Speaker 1: that it's a system with some standards so that cheating
Speaker 1: and fraud don't go on. In other words, the appearance
Speaker 1: of impropriety is recognized, for example, in campaign finance laws,
Speaker 1: which I'm sure you love to justify limitations on the
Speaker 1: size of contributions. That's there hasn't been a finding of impropriety,
Speaker 1: it's an appearance of impropriety. The same holds true in
Speaker 1: the election contest that you do need to put some
Speaker 1: standards on it, whether it's showing voter identification when you
Speaker 1: go into the polls or a signature match on an
Speaker 1: absentee ballot to give voters after the election. Uh, some
Speaker 1: elements have proof that in fact, all the votes are legitimate.
Speaker 1: You outright asked Republicans to quote take a hard look
Speaker 1: before advocating laws that actually to limit the franchise of
Speaker 1: otherwise qualified voters. Yeah. I think that's important for Republicans
Speaker 1: to do. I think that's not always enough of the
Speaker 1: equation in in all these states. I think it is
Speaker 1: important to to make it easy for people to vote.
Speaker 1: To give you an example, Republicans have all of a
Speaker 1: sudden gone negative on drop boxes, where voters can take
Speaker 1: their ballots and drop them in a box, and that's
Speaker 1: the way it gets uh. They get processed encountered, so
Speaker 1: they don't have to stand in lines either in early voting,
Speaker 1: they don't have to trust the mails by by mailing
Speaker 1: them through the postal service the drop box. Republicans for
Speaker 1: some reason have decided that drop boxes are a bad
Speaker 1: idea that to me is a barrier two voters. That
Speaker 1: that makes little or no sense. And I don't think
Speaker 1: it's right that the Republican Party in a number of
Speaker 1: states taken that position. When we come back, being Gensberg
Speaker 1: throws water on the president's fiery claims and the democrats
Speaker 1: worst post election fears. I call the Union Hall as
Speaker 1: his amount of life and death. I think these people
Speaker 1: of planning to kill Dr. King. On April four, Dr
Speaker 1: Martin Luther King was shot and killed in Memphis. A
Speaker 1: petty criminal named James Earl Ray was arrested. He pled
Speaker 1: guilty to the crime and spent the rest of his
Speaker 1: life in prison. Case closed right, James Hill Ray was
Speaker 1: upon for the official story. The authorities would parade all,
Speaker 1: we found a gun, the James L. Raybald in Birmingham
Speaker 1: that killed Dr King, Except it wasn't the gun that
Speaker 1: killed Dr King. One of the problems that came out
Speaker 1: when I got the ray case was that some of
Speaker 1: the evidence, as far as I was concerned, did not
Speaker 1: match the circumstances. This is the MLK tapes. The first
Speaker 1: episodes are available now. Listen on the I Heart radio app,
Speaker 1: Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Give us
Speaker 1: every attention. We need everything you've got fast. Waiting on
Speaker 1: Reparations would beat the podcast. Tune in every Thursday politics
Speaker 1: and wordplay. We fight for the people because they got
Speaker 1: us in the worst way. From the Hill Cooper, the
Speaker 1: Bomb Bay to count Game, from the Left on Clay
Speaker 1: to what the Neo kanse Every Thursday cop to head
Speaker 1: off to break us off with some break because we're waiting.
Speaker 1: Listen to Waiting on Reparations of my Heart radio app,
Speaker 1: Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. After thirty years,
Speaker 1: it's time to return to the halls of West Beverly
Speaker 1: High and hang out at the peach pit. On the
Speaker 1: podcast nine O two one OMG joined Jenny Garth and
Speaker 1: Tori Spelling for a rewatch of the hit series Beverly
Speaker 1: Hills nine O two one oh. From the very beginning,
Speaker 1: we get to tell the fans all of the behind
Speaker 1: the scenes stories to actually happen, so they know what
Speaker 1: happened on camera, obviously, but we can tell them all
Speaker 1: the good stuff that happened off camera. Get all the
Speaker 1: juicy details of every episode that you've been wondering about
Speaker 1: for decades. As nine O two one oh, super fan
Speaker 1: and radio host Sissany sits in with Jenny and Tory,
Speaker 1: two reminisce, reflect and relive each moment, from Brandon and
Speaker 1: Kelly's first kiss to shouting. Donna Martin graduates, you have
Speaker 1: an amazing memory. You remember everything about the entire ten
Speaker 1: years that we filmed that show, and you remember absolutely
Speaker 1: nothing of the ten years that we filmed that show.
Speaker 1: Listen to nine O two one OMG on the I
Speaker 1: Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Why do you think President Trump is saying fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud,
Speaker 1: fraud whenever he gets a chance. No, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm a humble lawyer and not a psychiatrist, so I'm
Speaker 1: not sure. I really know the answer to that question.
Speaker 1: Come on, Ben, you know the answer, Well, I know,
Speaker 1: why tell me the answer. I think because he wants
Speaker 1: to be able to delegitimize the election. Play that out
Speaker 1: for me, Katie, What would play that out for me?
Speaker 1: How does that happen? So I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think he said I'm not sure. Here, wait a second, Well,
Speaker 1: let's say what if he says, Ben, let's just let's
Speaker 1: just play this out like you said. What if he
Speaker 1: says that there's voter fraud is everywhere, and some of
Speaker 1: these Republican legislatures, you know, agree with him, or people
Speaker 1: who he has in his pocket agree with him, and
Speaker 1: then he can hold the entire country hostage by saying
Speaker 1: this isn't legitimate. I don't know that it's honestly, It's
Speaker 1: honestly not the way it works. That's why I said
Speaker 1: before that there's a massive difference between talking about fraud
Speaker 1: and trying to be legitimize an election and having the
Speaker 1: proof of that in a state election process. And that
Speaker 1: that's why I think the the notion that that he's
Speaker 1: somehow going to disrupt the whole country is a little
Speaker 1: bit overblown because like you. No one can exactly say
Speaker 1: the steps that it would take to get from O
Speaker 1: G Everything's fraud joint to actually stopping the certification of
Speaker 1: a vote and the naming of a slate of electors
Speaker 1: in in any state. So it's a case of all talk.
Speaker 1: But if you did have to hypothesize, ben, how someone
Speaker 1: might try to go about delegitimizing uh, the election results,
Speaker 1: How might one do that if one was so inclined, Well,
Speaker 1: I think I think the hypothetical that I did discussing
Speaker 1: one of those Washington Post top eds was that the campaign,
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign would quite cynically engage in mass challenges
Speaker 1: of voters as they went into polling places on grounds
Speaker 1: of registration and then in the counting of ballots on
Speaker 1: the validity of absentees as they came in. But it
Speaker 1: would have to be mass of blunderbus challenges. So, if
Speaker 1: the polls are to be believed, um in the key
Speaker 1: battleground states, there are not enough challenges. Now, if the
Speaker 1: results are considerably closer, right, and this does hinge on
Speaker 1: the results in in any of the battleground states being
Speaker 1: really close, then it might be possible to to challenge
Speaker 1: enough ballots to hold up a certificate of election. Uh,
Speaker 1: so that so that the electoral College would would get
Speaker 1: a little bit murky. Well, what would happen if it's
Speaker 1: close enough that you could challenge the results in these
Speaker 1: key battleground states? Um, you know, take me through that.
Speaker 1: Then what would happen? Well, I mean it depends on
Speaker 1: the state. So uh, you know, there there are so
Speaker 1: many there's so many variables and different pieces that would
Speaker 1: have to fall into place, uh, that you would be
Speaker 1: tempted to say it's impossible, except Florida happened in two thousands,
Speaker 1: So not impossible, but it's really highly unlikely. Uh. What
Speaker 1: what would have to happen is that I guess the
Speaker 1: electoral college nobody would have two seventy votes when all
Speaker 1: the states to coun tabulate their ballots did, and there
Speaker 1: would be one, two or three states that were within
Speaker 1: the margins of closeness set by state law, which is
Speaker 1: either point two percent or point five of of the
Speaker 1: difference between the two candidates, and so there would be
Speaker 1: a recount or a contest. And you know, when they're
Speaker 1: that closed, there are always ballots that that can be disputed.
Speaker 1: But that's also part of the legitimate process if an
Speaker 1: election is closed to go through a recounter a contest.
Speaker 1: Do you think we i get to the point where
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court decides who the next President of the
Speaker 1: United States is this go around? Well, I mean, I
Speaker 1: think it's I think it's really really unlikely. I think
Speaker 1: the greatest chances that will have a pretty clear indication
Speaker 1: of a winner, if not election night, within a couple
Speaker 1: of days of that, I think given the all the
Speaker 1: absentees that have been found, it may take a week
Speaker 1: or two longer. I think, Uh, you know, the election
Speaker 1: has been so close and contested that it's been thrown
Speaker 1: in doubt three times out of the fifty seven that
Speaker 1: we've had. So I'm gonna take a wild guess that
Speaker 1: there's a five point two chance of it being that.
Speaker 1: And so in that scenario, it might end up going
Speaker 1: to the to the Supreme Court. But that hasn't happened
Speaker 1: often in our history, and it's a mistake to bet
Speaker 1: against history. Let's talk about two thousand, because you were
Speaker 1: imminently involved in the recount in Florida. Bob Balaban played
Speaker 1: you in the movie Recount. Did you like that casting,
Speaker 1: by the way, Ben, Yeah, I mean, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Somebody must have been somebody must have thought I was
Speaker 1: short and bald. Are we gonna win? Mr? Ginsburgh? By
Speaker 1: tomorrow morning? The stains of Bill Clinton will be washed away,
Speaker 1: and honor and dignity will finally be restored to the
Speaker 1: White House. Let me just point out. Let me just
Speaker 1: point out about the casting that I thought Bob Balaban
Speaker 1: was terrific, But Michael Hooley, who was by opposite on
Speaker 1: the Democratic side, is both shorter and balder than I am.
Speaker 1: And he was played by Dennis O'Leary as six ft
Speaker 1: two inch guy with a full head of hair. So
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna throw that out as as a casting
Speaker 1: example of the film. Duly noted, duly noted, But how
Speaker 1: insane was it for you? It made by the way
Speaker 1: it made me want to rewatch recount tonight because I
Speaker 1: was covering that every day when I was at the
Speaker 1: Today Show. I mean, was that completely insane? Yes, it
Speaker 1: certainly was. Just remember when you rewatch it that we
Speaker 1: won the recount and they won the movie. Well, I
Speaker 1: guess it depends on who you were. Who are you
Speaker 1: rooting for for president? Right? Well, I'm just saying that's
Speaker 1: a statement of fact, but you know, I mean it
Speaker 1: does show us something about the system. With this whole
Speaker 1: difference between the popular vote and the electoral college. Does
Speaker 1: it ever make you wonder if if the system needs
Speaker 1: to be rethought in the electoral college perhaps gotten gotten
Speaker 1: rid of well, I mean, that's an interesting point. I mean,
Speaker 1: the historical antecedents of the electoral college is that the
Speaker 1: founding fathers needed compromise between the agrarian interests and the
Speaker 1: federalists who were more more in the cities, and so
Speaker 1: the electoral college was the compromise that we've had for
Speaker 1: two hundred and forty some years. Um, it's a compromise
Speaker 1: that that's worked in the sense that campaigning for president
Speaker 1: would be completely different. Uh. And what would happen is
Speaker 1: that candidates would go to urban areas and forget rural
Speaker 1: areas because they're just aren't enough votes. So um, that
Speaker 1: would be that would be uh shift and really an
Speaker 1: isolation of the country um as a whole. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that changing the electoral college and talk of
Speaker 1: that is something that comes about when Democrats don't win
Speaker 1: a series of presidential elections they think they should like
Speaker 1: yess is if Joe Biden is elected, all the talk
Speaker 1: of the electoral college will will retreat to fashionable cocktail
Speaker 1: parties on the west side of Manhattan and maybe the
Speaker 1: East side. But but I mean, it's changing the electoral college.
Speaker 1: Those are the rules under which we play the games.
Speaker 1: The equivalent of a football team that's that gains a
Speaker 1: lot of yards but can't score, saying forget it, don't
Speaker 1: worry about what's on the scoreboard. We're not counting that anymore.
Speaker 1: The team that gains the most yards is gonna win.
Speaker 1: So you can change the rules they really want to,
Speaker 1: But changes that are done to sort of uh preordained
Speaker 1: and outcome, which is what this bout of wanting to
Speaker 1: change the electoral College is about doing that to get
Speaker 1: to gain a specific political result. It's bad, bad reason
Speaker 1: to change an institution that's been around for two hundred
Speaker 1: forty years. On the other hand, ben if of people
Speaker 1: in this country by already five are living in cities
Speaker 1: um and far outweigh the number of people in rural areas,
Speaker 1: maybe an adjustment could be made. Well maybe if that's
Speaker 1: the way the demographic patterns really go, then I think
Speaker 1: that's possible. Look, I also think that that part of
Speaker 1: the angst that's felt about the electoral college has really
Speaker 1: nothing to do with politics. There is a product, not
Speaker 1: a product of politics, but a product of a forty
Speaker 1: year demographic trend in this country for people to move
Speaker 1: into communities with people more like themselves. We are living
Speaker 1: in much more homogeneous communities uh than we ever did before.
Speaker 1: And so a lot of the polarization that is a curve,
Speaker 1: which is really what you're talking about, is the root
Speaker 1: problem with the electoral college has been caused by these
Speaker 1: sort of inexorcible demographic uh trends. You know, I'm not
Speaker 1: sure changing the electoral college deals with that rude issue.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about your role specifically in two thousand. How
Speaker 1: would you describe it? What? What were you there to do? Uh? Well,
Speaker 1: I was the general council of the Bush Cheney campaign.
Speaker 1: And um uh I had because I have worked elections
Speaker 1: and for the political party committees, done a lot of
Speaker 1: recounts on the congressional and state level, and so when
Speaker 1: we got ourselves in a recount, um, you know, I
Speaker 1: had helped prepare a lot of the basic materials that
Speaker 1: you always do four recounts, and then I went down
Speaker 1: to to Florida to help run the operations. What is
Speaker 1: your perspective on the impact that event had on our
Speaker 1: election system? The most immediate impact was that in two
Speaker 1: thousand three, Congress actually asked the massive infusion of of
Speaker 1: money into the election systems. Almost all communities bought new machines,
Speaker 1: new technology at that point, and so it really, for
Speaker 1: a period of time upgraded the mechanics of voting in
Speaker 1: the country. And the problem is is that those machines
Speaker 1: don't have a huge long shelf life, and most jurisdictions
Speaker 1: in the country now or are running running pretty long
Speaker 1: in the tooth on the equipment that they're using. Not
Speaker 1: only that been, but they can be hacked, and they
Speaker 1: can't be often well, I don't know. I did a
Speaker 1: documentary called I Voted, and it showed how easy it
Speaker 1: was to hack some of those systems. Some University of
Speaker 1: Michigan students did it in a couple of days. Furthermore,
Speaker 1: there's no way to verify and double check some of
Speaker 1: the results. So electronic voting is kind of problematic, don't
Speaker 1: you think, Well, I have a pride. Do have a
Speaker 1: problem with the touch screen machines in which there's no
Speaker 1: paper trail. Yeah, I certainly agree with that. I think
Speaker 1: it's a real mistake. And and we're in a we're
Speaker 1: in a bad way with our voting systems. I mean, uh,
Speaker 1: it's really tough to get communities who have to build
Speaker 1: schools and roads and feed people to appropriate money for
Speaker 1: for elections equipment that's used every other year, maybe twice.
Speaker 1: It's just it's just not a top priority of the
Speaker 1: state and local governments that actually do the funding for
Speaker 1: for machines. So that's that's a problematic issue. And plus
Speaker 1: the the most of the technology was put in place
Speaker 1: before there are iPads, so there are generations of improvements
Speaker 1: that could take place that really are not a top
Speaker 1: priority in state and local government funding. We started the
Speaker 1: conversation Ben, You're saying that it's that we're protected against
Speaker 1: voter fraud. It happens very rarely. The Republican battle cry
Speaker 1: is fraud. The Democratic battle cry is suppression. So where
Speaker 1: do where do we stand in this kind of you know,
Speaker 1: yin yang world of of one side focusing on one
Speaker 1: thing and the other side focusing on another. Well, I
Speaker 1: think it's I think it's not ideal. I think it's
Speaker 1: a function or a symptom of of the polarization that's
Speaker 1: part of the electorate and part of part of society,
Speaker 1: and it is those are messages to the base voters
Speaker 1: and not to the people in the middle who are
Speaker 1: not fierce partisans. So that's not a way that you're
Speaker 1: going to expand the electorate. How do you restore faith
Speaker 1: in democracy? In your view, that is a that is
Speaker 1: a complicated question in this day and age. I mean,
Speaker 1: I suppose it ultimately goes to the quality of our
Speaker 1: leaders on a national level, and I think it also
Speaker 1: goes to the way we act in our local communities.
Speaker 1: In other words, the way I think you achieve the
Speaker 1: goal of restoring faith in the system is to be
Speaker 1: able to change the terms of the debate away from
Speaker 1: really polarized rhetoric and actions. And I I think, um,
Speaker 1: although this I would be curious about other views on this,
Speaker 1: but I think that that is more likely to occur
Speaker 1: on a local level, where it strikes me that uh,
Speaker 1: people working with their neighbors are more more likely to
Speaker 1: come up with solutions to problems and folks on the
Speaker 1: national level who are retreating to their sort of polarized bunkers.
Speaker 1: And finally, do you have faith in in our election process?
Speaker 1: Do you feel like it will withstand any potential challenges
Speaker 1: from the president to others if the election doesn't go
Speaker 1: their way. Well, I mean, I ultimately do. I think
Speaker 1: it can be a difficult period uh post election if
Speaker 1: it's closed, to be sure, But I do take faith
Speaker 1: in having known so many of the officials on a
Speaker 1: local level and a state level who actually are the
Speaker 1: election system in this country. And uh, while when you
Speaker 1: have ten thousand five jurisdictions in a million volunteers, there
Speaker 1: will be mistakes, but I certainly do have faith in
Speaker 1: their good intents to to get this done in in
Speaker 1: a really professional, in good way. And I suppose it's
Speaker 1: also important to remember every state's law does have proceedings
Speaker 1: to allow for recounts and contests, especially when the results
Speaker 1: are closed, and every candidate, whether you like him or not,
Speaker 1: has the right to or like her or not. Because
Speaker 1: I was going to get to that, remember that Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton's campaign UH intervened in Jill Stein's recounts in three
Speaker 1: states Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin last year at the end
Speaker 1: of November, so that contesting elections is permitted by state
Speaker 1: law is one of those things candidates are allowed to do.
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton did it. Stacy Abrams has not yet conceded
Speaker 1: the Georgia governor's race. Never conceded, so that when impliciting
Speaker 1: your question is that Donald Trump won't concede. That's been
Speaker 1: done before two and uh, you know, the system moves on.
Speaker 1: You know. After talking with Ben, I was inspired to
Speaker 1: rewatch recount, which I'm actually in for a nano second,
Speaker 1: and I have to say, given the times we're in,
Speaker 1: it was pretty weird. There was actually one moment that
Speaker 1: stood out that I had to share. Johnny Apples says
Speaker 1: that we have a week to resolve this before the
Speaker 1: American people will lose that patient. In this scene, al
Speaker 1: Gore's team is debating how to conduct the recount, whether
Speaker 1: they should go into Democratic friendly counties and Hank count
Speaker 1: the paper ballots, and Warren Christopher, who was the Democratic
Speaker 1: face of the recount and a former Secretary of State
Speaker 1: played in the movie by John Hurt, says they need
Speaker 1: to be careful about how they proceed because the world
Speaker 1: is watching. We are theoretically it's last great democracy. We
Speaker 1: cannot resolve this in a way that is worthy of
Speaker 1: the office we seek. What kind of hope do we
Speaker 1: give other countries wish to share our values? We all
Speaker 1: know how that turned out, But an important reminder come Tuesday. Okay, everyone,
Speaker 1: My final plea, do make a plan. Whether you're dropping
Speaker 1: your mail in ballot off at an official location, make
Speaker 1: sure it's not past the deadline in your state to
Speaker 1: actually put it in the mail, voting early in person,
Speaker 1: or heading to the polls on November three, Bring a
Speaker 1: sandwich or the snack of your choice, listen to a podcast,
Speaker 1: and if you have any lingering questions, go to vote
Speaker 1: dot org for voting details specific to your state. For
Speaker 1: election coverage and interesting and fund non political items. To
Speaker 1: sign up for my morning newsletter wake up Call by
Speaker 1: going to Katie Couric dot com. Oh and one last thing,
Speaker 1: some advice to calm those election night nerves from our
Speaker 1: friend Jesse Littlewood at Common Cause. It's important to remember
Speaker 1: that election night is not results night. It's when we
Speaker 1: count every vote that we decide the results of the election.
Speaker 1: We would all like to know the results of the
Speaker 1: election as soon as possible, and we should strive to
Speaker 1: do that, but it's more important to be accurate than
Speaker 1: it is to be fast. Okay, listeners, Good luck out there.
Speaker 1: I'll see you next week. On the other side. Turnout
Speaker 1: is a production of I Heart Media and Katie Curreic Media.
Speaker 1: The executive producers are Katie Curic and Courtney Littz. Supervising
Speaker 1: producers Lauren Hansen. Associate producers Derek Clements, Eliza Costas and
Speaker 1: Emily Pento. Editing by Derrick Clements and Lauren Hansen, Mixing
Speaker 1: by Derrick Clements. Our researcher is Gabriel Loser and special
Speaker 1: thanks to my right hand woman, Adriana Fasio. You can
Speaker 1: follow me all my election coverage at Katie Correct. Meanwhile, yes,
Speaker 1: I'm Katie Correct. Thanks so much for listening everyone. We'll
Speaker 1: see you next time. Kenny jameson here Bread Time, All
Speaker 1: Star in Wolf series champ Hope Vida in California. Mama,
Speaker 1: what does the chicken say? Gratte draffe, giraffe, giraffe. You're
Speaker 1: not gonna get it all right. Just make sure you
Speaker 1: know the big stuff, like making sure your kids are
Speaker 1: buckled correctly in the right seat for their agent's eyes.
Speaker 1: Get it right visits n h S a dot gov
Speaker 1: slash The Right Seat brought to you by the National
Speaker 1: Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the ad Council. After thirty years,
Speaker 1: it's time to return to the halls of West Beverly
Speaker 1: High and hang out at the peach pit. On the
Speaker 1: podcast nine O two one o MG, visit Jenny Garth
Speaker 1: and Tory Spelling for a rewatch of the hit series
Speaker 1: Beverly Hills nine O two one oh. From the very beginning,
Speaker 1: we get to tell the fans all of the behind
Speaker 1: the scenes stories to actually happen, so they know what
Speaker 1: happened on camera obviously, but we can tell them all
Speaker 1: the good stuff that happened off camera. Listen to nine
Speaker 1: O two one o MG on the I Heart Radio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.