1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,160 --> 00:00:13,840
Speaker 2: A judge struck down George's abortion law, which effectively prohibited

3
00:00:13,880 --> 00:00:18,560
Speaker 2: abortions beyond about six weeks of pregnancy. That's often before

4
00:00:18,600 --> 00:00:22,840
Speaker 2: women realize they're pregnant. Judge Robert McBurney wrote, it is

5
00:00:22,920 --> 00:00:26,200
Speaker 2: not for a legislator, a judge, or a commander from

6
00:00:26,200 --> 00:00:29,200
Speaker 2: the Handmaid's tale to tell these women what to do

7
00:00:29,280 --> 00:00:33,320
Speaker 2: with their bodies during this period when the fetis cannot survive.

8
00:00:33,760 --> 00:00:36,239
Speaker 2: His ruling means the law in the state reverts to

9
00:00:36,320 --> 00:00:41,640
Speaker 2: its prior status, allowing abortions until roughly twenty weeks into pregnancy,

10
00:00:41,960 --> 00:00:45,040
Speaker 2: although the state Attorney General intends to appeal to the

11
00:00:45,080 --> 00:00:48,800
Speaker 2: state Supreme Court, which already struck down the law on

12
00:00:48,840 --> 00:00:52,600
Speaker 2: different grounds. Joining me is Elizabeth Zepper, a professor at

13
00:00:52,640 --> 00:00:55,880
Speaker 2: the University of Texas Law School and an expert in

14
00:00:55,960 --> 00:00:58,480
Speaker 2: health law. Liz, will you tell us about the history

15
00:00:58,520 --> 00:01:03,279
Speaker 2: of the litigation over this Georgia abortion ban? So?

16
00:01:03,600 --> 00:01:08,200
Speaker 3: Two years ago the court here held a trial on

17
00:01:08,480 --> 00:01:13,760
Speaker 3: the constitutionality of Georgia's six week abortion ban and entered

18
00:01:13,760 --> 00:01:18,160
Speaker 3: in order, largely in joining the provisions of the law,

19
00:01:18,600 --> 00:01:21,600
Speaker 3: but then the state appealed and the Supreme Court stayed

20
00:01:21,640 --> 00:01:24,920
Speaker 3: the court's ruling to allow it to consider the full

21
00:01:25,000 --> 00:01:28,600
Speaker 3: merit of the constitutional argument. And so with this reversal,

22
00:01:28,640 --> 00:01:31,160
Speaker 3: it went back to the trial court, and now the

23
00:01:31,200 --> 00:01:35,280
Speaker 3: trial court again has determined that the law violates the

24
00:01:35,400 --> 00:01:39,759
Speaker 3: state constitutional protections for liberty, privacy, and equal protection.

25
00:01:40,280 --> 00:01:44,440
Speaker 2: Does Georgia law have a broader right to privacy than

26
00:01:44,800 --> 00:01:45,520
Speaker 2: federal law?

27
00:01:45,800 --> 00:01:50,200
Speaker 3: The Georgia Constitution protects liberty in a due process clause

28
00:01:50,200 --> 00:01:53,320
Speaker 3: that looks a lot like the US Constitution but was

29
00:01:53,400 --> 00:01:58,000
Speaker 3: more recently ratified in nineteen eighty two, and that has

30
00:01:58,040 --> 00:02:02,160
Speaker 3: been interpreted by Georgia court to encompass a right to privacy.

31
00:02:02,520 --> 00:02:05,880
Speaker 2: I thought that the language was sort of stunning until

32
00:02:05,880 --> 00:02:08,320
Speaker 2: that life can be sustained by the state and not

33
00:02:08,480 --> 00:02:11,320
Speaker 2: solely by the woman compelled by the act to do

34
00:02:11,360 --> 00:02:14,919
Speaker 2: the state's work. The balance of rights favors the woman.

35
00:02:15,040 --> 00:02:16,880
Speaker 2: Can you explain his reasoning?

36
00:02:17,160 --> 00:02:21,760
Speaker 3: Sure? On the issue of the pregnant person's liberty, the

37
00:02:21,840 --> 00:02:25,679
Speaker 3: Georgia Constitution protects a right to be let alone, and

38
00:02:25,960 --> 00:02:30,119
Speaker 3: like many other state constitutions, this means that individuals get

39
00:02:30,120 --> 00:02:33,440
Speaker 3: to make choices about their own bodies including the right

40
00:02:33,520 --> 00:02:37,000
Speaker 3: to refuse medical treatment or to take medical treatment that

41
00:02:37,040 --> 00:02:40,040
Speaker 3: we might disagree with. And the court here says, look,

42
00:02:40,040 --> 00:02:42,280
Speaker 3: there's a compelling interest on the part of the state

43
00:02:42,400 --> 00:02:46,160
Speaker 3: in protecting fetal life, that there's a fundamental right on

44
00:02:46,200 --> 00:02:51,760
Speaker 3: the other side of the ledger and on balance until viability,

45
00:02:52,320 --> 00:02:57,040
Speaker 3: that balance favors the woman, so that abortion prior to

46
00:02:57,160 --> 00:03:00,520
Speaker 3: viability has to be available to her. That otherwise the

47
00:03:00,560 --> 00:03:03,840
Speaker 3: state is conscripting her into service to the state in

48
00:03:03,880 --> 00:03:07,800
Speaker 3: a context where the fetus is entirely dependent on the

49
00:03:07,840 --> 00:03:11,960
Speaker 3: pregnant person and the state can't assume responsibility for the

50
00:03:11,960 --> 00:03:12,680
Speaker 3: fetal life.

51
00:03:12,760 --> 00:03:16,760
Speaker 2: Also, he said that the Georgia ben isn't narrowly tailored.

52
00:03:17,480 --> 00:03:20,960
Speaker 3: Right. He says it's not narrowly tailored because it is

53
00:03:21,080 --> 00:03:25,760
Speaker 3: so broad, and that the state can't advance its interest

54
00:03:25,840 --> 00:03:31,560
Speaker 3: in fetal life by so overwhelmingly destroying the pregnant person's

55
00:03:31,639 --> 00:03:35,480
Speaker 3: ability to control her body and to make decisions about

56
00:03:35,520 --> 00:03:39,160
Speaker 3: medical treatment. That only post viability line can the state

57
00:03:39,240 --> 00:03:41,840
Speaker 3: apply its law so broadly and tell.

58
00:03:41,720 --> 00:03:45,520
Speaker 2: Us a little about the claim under the Georgia Constitution's

59
00:03:45,600 --> 00:03:47,040
Speaker 2: equal protection clause.

60
00:03:47,640 --> 00:03:51,920
Speaker 3: Right, So, under the Georgia Constitution, the equal protection clause

61
00:03:52,200 --> 00:03:56,480
Speaker 3: requires strict scrutiny, so the highest level of constitutional review

62
00:03:56,480 --> 00:03:59,840
Speaker 3: where you have an infringement on a fundamental right and

63
00:04:00,120 --> 00:04:02,960
Speaker 3: the state is sorting people. So the plaintiffs here had

64
00:04:02,960 --> 00:04:05,200
Speaker 3: made a number of arguments about the ways that the

65
00:04:05,280 --> 00:04:09,080
Speaker 3: law was sorting people, and the court here in particular

66
00:04:09,160 --> 00:04:13,120
Speaker 3: highlighted that the state, as some other states have done

67
00:04:13,160 --> 00:04:17,600
Speaker 3: as well, has allowed pregnant people to access abortion for

68
00:04:17,760 --> 00:04:22,120
Speaker 3: medical emergencies, but then has said that mental health crises

69
00:04:22,200 --> 00:04:27,320
Speaker 3: are not accepted from the abortion ban. And the court said, look, right,

70
00:04:27,480 --> 00:04:30,479
Speaker 3: healthcare crisis that involve the brain, which is a very

71
00:04:30,520 --> 00:04:35,839
Speaker 3: important organ for our functioning, can't be treated differently than

72
00:04:35,920 --> 00:04:39,120
Speaker 3: crises involving the body, and that there seems to be

73
00:04:39,160 --> 00:04:43,800
Speaker 3: some animals against mental health actually underlying this particular classification.

74
00:04:44,440 --> 00:04:46,960
Speaker 2: What do you think about the language of the opandanim

75
00:04:47,080 --> 00:04:50,520
Speaker 2: He also referred to it's not for a legislator, a judge,

76
00:04:50,920 --> 00:04:54,200
Speaker 2: or a commander from the Handmaid's tale to tell these

77
00:04:54,240 --> 00:04:55,880
Speaker 2: women what to do with their bodies.

78
00:04:56,200 --> 00:04:58,320
Speaker 3: I think in some measure it looks a lot like

79
00:04:58,440 --> 00:05:03,239
Speaker 3: language that we're seeing from state court judges across the country. Now.

80
00:05:03,320 --> 00:05:06,320
Speaker 3: Sometimes that language is in descent. I think here about

81
00:05:06,360 --> 00:05:10,479
Speaker 3: the Ioa Supreme Court, which recently upheld that state six

82
00:05:10,560 --> 00:05:14,640
Speaker 3: week ban over some pretty vigorous descent, and in a

83
00:05:14,680 --> 00:05:18,440
Speaker 3: context where that court had been stacked by Republicans so

84
00:05:18,600 --> 00:05:22,640
Speaker 3: as to change the state constitutional protection. So here, what

85
00:05:22,800 --> 00:05:25,080
Speaker 3: I think the Trial Court is doing is a couple things.

86
00:05:25,360 --> 00:05:28,240
Speaker 3: He is telling the state Supreme Court that there is

87
00:05:28,279 --> 00:05:31,479
Speaker 3: a long history here and that their position on the

88
00:05:31,520 --> 00:05:36,360
Speaker 3: abortion van defies the interpretation of the Georgia Constitution that

89
00:05:36,480 --> 00:05:40,200
Speaker 3: courts had previously understood. I think the trial court also

90
00:05:40,279 --> 00:05:43,360
Speaker 3: signals that he fully expects that the state Supreme Court

91
00:05:43,480 --> 00:05:47,240
Speaker 3: will reverse him. He slams the Supreme Court very early

92
00:05:47,279 --> 00:05:51,920
Speaker 3: on for its false modesty. Right, It's basically its pretense

93
00:05:52,080 --> 00:05:55,000
Speaker 3: that the court was sort of just calling balls and strikes,

94
00:05:55,000 --> 00:05:58,400
Speaker 3: and the constitution means what it means, and courts don't

95
00:05:58,400 --> 00:06:01,400
Speaker 3: actually play a role in telling people what it means.

96
00:06:01,440 --> 00:06:04,560
Speaker 3: And he basically calls them out for engaging in nonsense

97
00:06:04,800 --> 00:06:07,280
Speaker 3: on that point. So I think the major takeaway from

98
00:06:07,320 --> 00:06:10,839
Speaker 3: this opinion is that abortion is not safe in Georgia.

99
00:06:11,360 --> 00:06:14,520
Speaker 3: I think the voters of Georgia should be aware that

100
00:06:14,960 --> 00:06:18,200
Speaker 3: it is highly unlikely that abortion will become legal in

101
00:06:18,279 --> 00:06:21,080
Speaker 3: the state and the six week span will remain enjoined.

102
00:06:21,200 --> 00:06:23,400
Speaker 3: And so I think that's a really important point given

103
00:06:23,440 --> 00:06:26,520
Speaker 3: the election year, where I actually think the timing of

104
00:06:26,560 --> 00:06:29,400
Speaker 3: this decision is one that could really confuse voters where

105
00:06:29,400 --> 00:06:31,640
Speaker 3: they think maybe abortion is no longer an issue in

106
00:06:31,680 --> 00:06:32,520
Speaker 3: the same and.

107
00:06:32,520 --> 00:06:35,800
Speaker 2: The next step is they'll appeal this to the Georgia

108
00:06:35,839 --> 00:06:36,599
Speaker 2: Supreme Court.

109
00:06:36,960 --> 00:06:39,320
Speaker 3: Yeah, so the next step is an appeal on the

110
00:06:39,360 --> 00:06:42,960
Speaker 3: constitutional issues. Again, I think highly unlikely there is this

111
00:06:43,040 --> 00:06:44,920
Speaker 3: decision stands for any period of time.

112
00:06:45,040 --> 00:06:48,799
Speaker 2: So I'm wondering whether doctors would even feel safe performing

113
00:06:48,839 --> 00:06:51,360
Speaker 2: abortions in this interim period.

114
00:06:52,160 --> 00:06:55,040
Speaker 3: Yeah, so it sort of depends on the political economy

115
00:06:55,080 --> 00:06:58,360
Speaker 3: of Georgia. I guess you know. We've seen trial courts

116
00:06:58,400 --> 00:07:02,240
Speaker 3: in the state of Texas. For example, in Kate Cox's case,

117
00:07:02,400 --> 00:07:05,120
Speaker 3: right trial court had issued an order that would have

118
00:07:05,160 --> 00:07:08,039
Speaker 3: allowed a doctor to go forward with an abortion for

119
00:07:08,320 --> 00:07:12,000
Speaker 3: Kate Cox, and the Attorney General threatened any hospital or

120
00:07:12,040 --> 00:07:15,960
Speaker 3: physician that went forward that he would in fact prosecute

121
00:07:15,960 --> 00:07:18,280
Speaker 3: them to the full extent of the law. We also

122
00:07:18,360 --> 00:07:22,080
Speaker 3: saw in Amanda Zerovski's case in Texas, a win in

123
00:07:22,120 --> 00:07:25,520
Speaker 3: the trial court that was immediately enjoined right, So there

124
00:07:25,560 --> 00:07:29,280
Speaker 3: was never sort of the time for providers to begin

125
00:07:29,400 --> 00:07:33,320
Speaker 3: providing care. So that may well happen in Georgia as well.

126
00:07:33,480 --> 00:07:37,480
Speaker 2: I wanted to ask you about Louisiana. Louisiana became the

127
00:07:37,560 --> 00:07:42,600
Speaker 2: first state to list abortion drugs as control substances. What

128
00:07:42,640 --> 00:07:46,320
Speaker 2: does that mean for using abortion drugs in that state?

129
00:07:46,960 --> 00:07:51,840
Speaker 3: Yeah, so treating abortion drugs as controlled substances means that

130
00:07:52,200 --> 00:07:58,040
Speaker 3: possession of methopristoe my prosco can be prosecuted as a

131
00:07:58,480 --> 00:08:05,360
Speaker 3: drug crime, also affecting care in hospital settings because it's

132
00:08:05,400 --> 00:08:08,320
Speaker 3: a controlled substance, right, requiring a lot more in the

133
00:08:08,320 --> 00:08:11,880
Speaker 3: way of regulation and control over the drug. And these

134
00:08:11,960 --> 00:08:15,880
Speaker 3: drugs are used both for non therapeutic abortions where people

135
00:08:15,920 --> 00:08:18,640
Speaker 3: are seeking abortion, and also for miscarriage treatment.

136
00:08:19,360 --> 00:08:23,520
Speaker 2: If you look at how strict the state's abortion bands are,

137
00:08:24,000 --> 00:08:27,800
Speaker 2: is Louisiana on the outer edge of most extreme?

138
00:08:28,400 --> 00:08:31,680
Speaker 3: Yes, I mean it's a large and growing group of

139
00:08:31,800 --> 00:08:35,400
Speaker 3: states that are on the outer edge of abortion regulation.

140
00:08:35,720 --> 00:08:38,439
Speaker 3: I think it's important to put in context that Louisiana's

141
00:08:38,640 --> 00:08:42,880
Speaker 3: criminal abortion pill law is consistent with the fact that

142
00:08:42,920 --> 00:08:47,640
Speaker 3: Louisiana incarcerates people at a rate really not known in

143
00:08:47,679 --> 00:08:52,040
Speaker 3: the developed world. So a verycarceral state that prefers to

144
00:08:52,080 --> 00:08:55,360
Speaker 3: deal with almost every kind of social problem that the

145
00:08:55,480 --> 00:08:59,800
Speaker 3: legislature might identify as a criminal problem. So pregnant people

146
00:08:59,800 --> 00:09:03,120
Speaker 3: are exempted from the law, but friends or family or

147
00:09:03,160 --> 00:09:07,600
Speaker 3: anyone who possesses medication abortion just in case could be

148
00:09:07,640 --> 00:09:09,200
Speaker 3: subject to the criminalization.

149
00:09:09,600 --> 00:09:14,000
Speaker 2: Besides Louisiana, do any other states abortion laws stand out

150
00:09:14,040 --> 00:09:14,880
Speaker 2: to you?

151
00:09:14,880 --> 00:09:17,600
Speaker 3: You know, there are a number of states that have very,

152
00:09:17,720 --> 00:09:22,679
Speaker 3: very narrow exceptions. Tennessee is one with very narrow exceptions.

153
00:09:22,720 --> 00:09:26,640
Speaker 3: There are states that require, for example, substantial impairment of

154
00:09:26,679 --> 00:09:30,920
Speaker 3: a major bodily function be irreversible in order for a

155
00:09:31,200 --> 00:09:36,440
Speaker 3: doctor to perform an abortion. I suspect that the legislative

156
00:09:36,520 --> 00:09:39,440
Speaker 3: term beginning in January is going to come with a

157
00:09:39,480 --> 00:09:44,600
Speaker 3: lot of innovations in abortion law. We'll probably see things

158
00:09:44,679 --> 00:09:49,160
Speaker 3: like travel restrictions. We may see more states follow Louisiana's

159
00:09:49,160 --> 00:09:54,160
Speaker 3: model in criminalizing abortion pills as controlled substances. So I

160
00:09:54,200 --> 00:09:57,000
Speaker 3: think there's just a lot of lawmaking in this area

161
00:09:57,240 --> 00:10:01,959
Speaker 3: and a lot of competition between states to regulate more thoroughly.

162
00:10:02,400 --> 00:10:06,320
Speaker 2: And on the opposite end of the spectrum from Louisiana

163
00:10:06,840 --> 00:10:11,760
Speaker 2: is California. Is California tell us about its lawsuit against

164
00:10:11,800 --> 00:10:13,040
Speaker 2: a Catholic hospital.

165
00:10:13,360 --> 00:10:17,920
Speaker 3: So, California has filed a lawsuit under the Emergency Medical

166
00:10:17,960 --> 00:10:22,760
Speaker 3: Treatment and Labor Act against a Catholic hospital that refused

167
00:10:22,840 --> 00:10:26,520
Speaker 3: care to a pregnant person who is miscarrying. And this

168
00:10:26,640 --> 00:10:31,280
Speaker 3: is really an important lawsuit because we know that hospitals,

169
00:10:31,360 --> 00:10:37,040
Speaker 3: even before Dobbs, in particular religiously affiliated hospitals, had been

170
00:10:37,120 --> 00:10:41,559
Speaker 3: denying and delaying care from miscarriages to people and also

171
00:10:41,600 --> 00:10:45,120
Speaker 3: for treatment of ectopic pregnancies. And so this is really

172
00:10:45,120 --> 00:10:49,440
Speaker 3: an attempt to make sure that hospitals within jurisdictions that

173
00:10:49,480 --> 00:10:53,120
Speaker 3: are committed to abortion care are providing abortion care in

174
00:10:53,160 --> 00:10:56,760
Speaker 3: those sort of narrow situations that the federal law requires,

175
00:10:56,840 --> 00:11:00,360
Speaker 3: so where someone's health is in serious jeopardy nless they

176
00:11:00,400 --> 00:11:02,760
Speaker 3: get an abortion. And this is in line with the

177
00:11:02,840 --> 00:11:06,280
Speaker 3: cases that we're seeing ongoing both in Texas and Idaho.

178
00:11:06,520 --> 00:11:09,640
Speaker 3: Idaho's case had gone up to the Supreme Court last term,

179
00:11:09,760 --> 00:11:12,840
Speaker 3: but the court basically punted, raising the question of what

180
00:11:12,880 --> 00:11:16,560
Speaker 3: the federal law requires of hospitals and what they have

181
00:11:16,679 --> 00:11:21,000
Speaker 3: to do under abortion bands. California's lawsuit doesn't involve an

182
00:11:21,040 --> 00:11:23,720
Speaker 3: abortion ban, but does involve the question of what is

183
00:11:23,760 --> 00:11:27,720
Speaker 3: the contours of MTALLA. What kind of protections can people

184
00:11:27,800 --> 00:11:30,880
Speaker 3: who are pregnant expect when they go to an emergency room.

185
00:11:31,559 --> 00:11:34,080
Speaker 3: In blue states and red states alike.

186
00:11:34,559 --> 00:11:37,520
Speaker 2: There are a lot of states where abortion will be

187
00:11:37,600 --> 00:11:41,439
Speaker 2: on the ballot. How much do you think abortion will

188
00:11:41,480 --> 00:11:42,600
Speaker 2: play in the election?

189
00:11:43,400 --> 00:11:46,240
Speaker 3: I mean, abortion seems to be playing a role in

190
00:11:46,280 --> 00:11:50,120
Speaker 3: motivating voters both to vote and to vote in favor

191
00:11:50,280 --> 00:11:53,720
Speaker 3: of abortion rights. I think it's essential that we understand

192
00:11:53,760 --> 00:11:56,600
Speaker 3: that abortion rights are at play at both the federal

193
00:11:56,679 --> 00:11:59,640
Speaker 3: and the state levels. So even states that have ballid

194
00:11:59,640 --> 00:12:02,959
Speaker 3: in issue to protect abortion are of course subject to

195
00:12:03,040 --> 00:12:06,679
Speaker 3: federal jurisdiction. And if we have a second Trump administration,

196
00:12:06,960 --> 00:12:10,160
Speaker 3: the Trump campaign in Project twenty twenty five have made

197
00:12:10,280 --> 00:12:14,520
Speaker 3: very clear that a national abortion ban is a goal

198
00:12:14,880 --> 00:12:18,120
Speaker 3: and that the Comstock Act could act as a national

199
00:12:18,160 --> 00:12:21,000
Speaker 3: abortion ban. So I think it's important to think about

200
00:12:21,040 --> 00:12:23,400
Speaker 3: the states, think about what protections they could put in

201
00:12:23,440 --> 00:12:26,880
Speaker 3: place for abortion or impediments to abortions. But we live

202
00:12:27,040 --> 00:12:29,520
Speaker 3: in a federal system, which means what happens at the

203
00:12:29,559 --> 00:12:32,240
Speaker 3: federal level matters quite a lot for access to healthcare.

204
00:12:32,480 --> 00:12:35,440
Speaker 2: So much is at stake in this election. Thanks so much,

205
00:12:35,520 --> 00:12:39,400
Speaker 2: Liz Best. Professor Elizabeth Zepper of the University of Texas

206
00:12:39,480 --> 00:12:43,400
Speaker 2: Law School. Coming up next. Lawsuits are piling up over

207
00:12:43,520 --> 00:12:50,320
Speaker 2: election rules. This is Bloomberg. The lawsuits range from disputes

208
00:12:50,360 --> 00:12:54,079
Speaker 2: over mail in ballots and purging voter roles to how

209
00:12:54,080 --> 00:12:58,240
Speaker 2: to run the voting and finalize ballot counts. Republicans have

210
00:12:58,360 --> 00:13:01,959
Speaker 2: filed a landslide of elect election lawsuits in more than

211
00:13:02,040 --> 00:13:06,120
Speaker 2: half the states to challenge voting rules and election processes,

212
00:13:06,559 --> 00:13:10,600
Speaker 2: but there's a clearer concentration of lawsuits in swing states

213
00:13:10,720 --> 00:13:16,200
Speaker 2: like Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, perhaps sowing more

214
00:13:16,240 --> 00:13:20,240
Speaker 2: confusion before the election than anything else. Joining me to

215
00:13:20,320 --> 00:13:24,280
Speaker 2: clear up the confusion is elections law expert Derek Muller,

216
00:13:24,360 --> 00:13:28,040
Speaker 2: a professor at Notre Dame Law School. Derek, the Republicans

217
00:13:28,080 --> 00:13:32,360
Speaker 2: have been filing lawsuits across the country. Is there anything

218
00:13:32,480 --> 00:13:37,440
Speaker 2: different about these lawsuits than in other years, either in

219
00:13:37,559 --> 00:13:40,079
Speaker 2: numbers or in the kind of lawsuits?

220
00:13:40,600 --> 00:13:43,959
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I think the rnc's lawsuits earlier this year.

221
00:13:44,000 --> 00:13:45,439
Speaker 1: There's sort of a trunch of them that they were

222
00:13:45,480 --> 00:13:47,840
Speaker 1: filing at the beginning of twenty twenty four. I think

223
00:13:47,880 --> 00:13:50,079
Speaker 1: the theme was we want to file these before the

224
00:13:50,120 --> 00:13:53,160
Speaker 1: elections so that were not caught flat footed after the election.

225
00:13:53,400 --> 00:13:56,760
Speaker 1: There are obviously lots of disputes about changes to election

226
00:13:56,880 --> 00:13:59,360
Speaker 1: rules in twenty twenty, and some challenges that arose in

227
00:13:59,360 --> 00:14:02,040
Speaker 1: states like Sylvania about how they were counting apps and

228
00:14:02,080 --> 00:14:04,480
Speaker 1: tee ballots, and then some of those roads too late

229
00:14:04,559 --> 00:14:07,600
Speaker 1: in the game, it becomes just unrealistic to seek a remedy.

230
00:14:07,640 --> 00:14:10,720
Speaker 1: There's not adequate time to evaluate the measures. So I

231
00:14:10,760 --> 00:14:14,520
Speaker 1: mean the rnc's efforts here sometimes intervening cases, sometimes trying

232
00:14:14,559 --> 00:14:17,439
Speaker 1: to protect existing laws, and other times filing lawsuits. The

233
00:14:17,520 --> 00:14:20,160
Speaker 1: challenge laws is a sort of step to stage ahead

234
00:14:20,160 --> 00:14:22,040
Speaker 1: of the elections. That I mean, even if you lose,

235
00:14:22,080 --> 00:14:23,680
Speaker 1: you had your day in court, as opposed to the

236
00:14:23,720 --> 00:14:26,400
Speaker 1: case being thrown out altogether. So there's a question. We're

237
00:14:26,400 --> 00:14:29,400
Speaker 1: seeing high volume of cases being filed, but in some

238
00:14:29,480 --> 00:14:32,080
Speaker 1: respects it's less than twenty twenty. I mean, in twenty

239
00:14:32,080 --> 00:14:34,680
Speaker 1: twenty we had so many changes because of COVID, so

240
00:14:34,720 --> 00:14:37,720
Speaker 1: many late breaking changes by legislatures or by state executives

241
00:14:37,840 --> 00:14:39,880
Speaker 1: or people suing to say that the executive should have

242
00:14:39,920 --> 00:14:42,240
Speaker 1: done something. The executive shouldn't have done something, whatever it

243
00:14:42,320 --> 00:14:45,000
Speaker 1: might be. And so we definitely see a good chunk

244
00:14:45,080 --> 00:14:47,480
Speaker 1: of cases this year, but in some respects not nearly

245
00:14:47,520 --> 00:14:49,040
Speaker 1: the volume we saw in twenty twenty.

246
00:14:49,440 --> 00:14:53,240
Speaker 2: Do you go along with the theory I've heard espouse

247
00:14:53,320 --> 00:14:57,480
Speaker 2: that these suits lay the groundwork for if Trump or

248
00:14:57,480 --> 00:15:01,720
Speaker 2: Republicans lose the election, lease suits to the groundwork for

249
00:15:01,960 --> 00:15:04,720
Speaker 2: more suits challenging the election results.

250
00:15:05,000 --> 00:15:06,640
Speaker 1: So I don't know how much it can lay the

251
00:15:06,640 --> 00:15:09,320
Speaker 1: groundwork for our results. If you lose before the election,

252
00:15:09,680 --> 00:15:11,400
Speaker 1: it seems hard to say that you're somehow going to

253
00:15:11,440 --> 00:15:13,560
Speaker 1: file a lawsuit to win after the election, or if

254
00:15:13,560 --> 00:15:16,160
Speaker 1: you've filed the claim before the election and the court

255
00:15:16,240 --> 00:15:18,520
Speaker 1: kind of passes on it. I suppose there are certain

256
00:15:18,560 --> 00:15:22,520
Speaker 1: circumstances where they might segregate the ballots and then maybe

257
00:15:22,520 --> 00:15:24,880
Speaker 1: you have a dispute to resolve after the election. So

258
00:15:24,920 --> 00:15:27,360
Speaker 1: that happened in Pennsylvania in twenty twenty, where there was

259
00:15:27,400 --> 00:15:30,920
Speaker 1: a dispute out of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court about changing

260
00:15:30,960 --> 00:15:34,080
Speaker 1: the receipt that line for apps and tee ballots by

261
00:15:34,120 --> 00:15:36,840
Speaker 1: three days. Supreme Court issue in order sort of asking

262
00:15:36,920 --> 00:15:39,240
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania to segregate those ballots and hold them off to

263
00:15:39,280 --> 00:15:40,800
Speaker 1: the side. I mean, it was never resolved because there

264
00:15:40,800 --> 00:15:42,520
Speaker 1: was really no dispute at the end of the day

265
00:15:42,600 --> 00:15:44,840
Speaker 1: about who won the election. That balotsowin't make the difference.

266
00:15:44,920 --> 00:15:47,040
Speaker 1: So maybe we'll see that in places, but I'm not sure.

267
00:15:47,200 --> 00:15:49,320
Speaker 1: I think probably the more concerning thing is obviously that

268
00:15:49,440 --> 00:15:52,080
Speaker 1: you sue, you file up lawsuits, even if you lose.

269
00:15:52,200 --> 00:15:54,640
Speaker 1: You sort of have this sort of dissension or dissatisfaction

270
00:15:54,800 --> 00:15:56,880
Speaker 1: about some of the allegations and the complaint, and that

271
00:15:56,920 --> 00:15:58,480
Speaker 1: people are worried at the end of the day about

272
00:15:58,480 --> 00:16:01,720
Speaker 1: the legitimacy of the outcome, doubting its legitimacy. But I'm

273
00:16:01,720 --> 00:16:05,360
Speaker 1: not sure how viable sort of pre election lawsuits are

274
00:16:05,360 --> 00:16:08,200
Speaker 1: going to be for post election challenges. If you win,

275
00:16:08,440 --> 00:16:10,160
Speaker 1: you shouldn't have a challenge to file, and if you lose,

276
00:16:10,160 --> 00:16:12,360
Speaker 1: it's not clear the challenge would succeed after the election.

277
00:16:12,760 --> 00:16:16,120
Speaker 2: So let's go through some of the challenges in different states.

278
00:16:16,120 --> 00:16:20,320
Speaker 2: You mentioned Pennsylvania, Republicans have been targeting mail in ballots.

279
00:16:20,680 --> 00:16:24,040
Speaker 2: Is it proven that Democrats vote more by mail in

280
00:16:24,120 --> 00:16:25,520
Speaker 2: ballots than Republicans.

281
00:16:26,160 --> 00:16:29,080
Speaker 1: Well, the conventional wisdom about four and a half years

282
00:16:29,080 --> 00:16:32,080
Speaker 1: ago is the Republicans used absentee ballots more than Democrats.

283
00:16:32,200 --> 00:16:35,600
Speaker 1: You can see military personnality to the elderly who heavily

284
00:16:35,640 --> 00:16:38,640
Speaker 1: relied on absentee ballots. It's why Florida had such extensive

285
00:16:38,640 --> 00:16:42,720
Speaker 1: absentee ballots. There's evidence that, you know, minority populations are

286
00:16:42,720 --> 00:16:45,200
Speaker 1: more distrustful of the postal service, and so they would

287
00:16:45,240 --> 00:16:47,360
Speaker 1: prefer to vote in person. And then COVID sort of

288
00:16:47,400 --> 00:16:50,640
Speaker 1: flipped all of that. Democrats thought that absentee ballots were

289
00:16:50,680 --> 00:16:53,360
Speaker 1: the safe way of extending voting to everybody, and then

290
00:16:53,400 --> 00:16:55,600
Speaker 1: Republicans insist that it was safe to vote in person,

291
00:16:55,640 --> 00:16:58,360
Speaker 1: and somehow absent ballots have become rife with fraud. So

292
00:16:58,480 --> 00:17:00,840
Speaker 1: I think sometimes you've seen that in version. It certainly

293
00:17:00,880 --> 00:17:02,760
Speaker 1: played out in twenty twenty. I certainly don't think it's

294
00:17:02,760 --> 00:17:06,040
Speaker 1: as dramatic in twenty twenty four, if it exists at all,

295
00:17:06,440 --> 00:17:09,120
Speaker 1: I think there's still something in the water for Republicans

296
00:17:09,119 --> 00:17:11,880
Speaker 1: who are told to vote in person and not vote absentee,

297
00:17:12,160 --> 00:17:15,480
Speaker 1: or doubts about the appsentee systems. That's probably suppressing turnout.

298
00:17:15,600 --> 00:17:18,359
Speaker 1: You know, Republicans suppressing their own turnout by refusing to

299
00:17:18,480 --> 00:17:21,440
Speaker 1: lean into absentee ballots. But at the same time, Democratic

300
00:17:21,480 --> 00:17:23,520
Speaker 1: requests are down too. I mean, we don't have as

301
00:17:23,640 --> 00:17:26,680
Speaker 1: robust absentee ballots in some places as we might have

302
00:17:26,720 --> 00:17:29,960
Speaker 1: seen during COVID during the pandemic, so people are returning

303
00:17:30,000 --> 00:17:32,240
Speaker 1: more to heading back to the polling place. And again

304
00:17:32,320 --> 00:17:34,359
Speaker 1: some states they clamp down a little bit on some

305
00:17:34,400 --> 00:17:37,960
Speaker 1: of those absentee notices. You're not automatically eligible for appsentees

306
00:17:37,960 --> 00:17:40,240
Speaker 1: in Florida anymore. You have to request them every two years,

307
00:17:40,280 --> 00:17:42,400
Speaker 1: things like that. So I think we're going to see

308
00:17:42,440 --> 00:17:44,879
Speaker 1: it come closer to parody. But it does seem that

309
00:17:44,960 --> 00:17:48,320
Speaker 1: Democrats are more inclined to use absentee ballots. Just the

310
00:17:48,440 --> 00:17:52,120
Speaker 1: question of how significant that desparity is in election cycles

311
00:17:52,160 --> 00:17:52,760
Speaker 1: like this one.

312
00:17:53,000 --> 00:17:55,800
Speaker 2: So Republicans, according to the New York Times, have filed

313
00:17:55,880 --> 00:18:00,320
Speaker 2: more than twenty lawsuits related to mail in voting, and

314
00:18:00,400 --> 00:18:04,719
Speaker 2: in Pennsylvania, they argued that voters should not be notified

315
00:18:04,960 --> 00:18:07,520
Speaker 2: of any errors in their mail in ballot, nor be

316
00:18:07,600 --> 00:18:11,120
Speaker 2: allowed to fix them. Do you think that that will succeed?

317
00:18:11,600 --> 00:18:14,920
Speaker 1: Right? So, I think there are opportunities to cure ballots

318
00:18:15,119 --> 00:18:17,440
Speaker 1: and their processes in each state to do so. But

319
00:18:17,480 --> 00:18:19,360
Speaker 1: I think The key here is in this law suit

320
00:18:19,400 --> 00:18:21,840
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania is that you have all these different counties

321
00:18:21,880 --> 00:18:24,720
Speaker 1: doing all different things. And in some counties, the county

322
00:18:24,720 --> 00:18:28,040
Speaker 1: clerk gets your absentee ballot, it's missing a signature, it's

323
00:18:28,080 --> 00:18:30,760
Speaker 1: missing the date. You know, it has your spouse's signature

324
00:18:30,800 --> 00:18:32,680
Speaker 1: instead of your signature on or whatever it might be.

325
00:18:32,760 --> 00:18:34,800
Speaker 1: And the county calls you up that same day and

326
00:18:34,960 --> 00:18:37,040
Speaker 1: leave the message in your cell phone says, hey, just

327
00:18:37,040 --> 00:18:39,560
Speaker 1: so you know your ballots is defective, you need to

328
00:18:39,560 --> 00:18:41,119
Speaker 1: come cure it, come down to the county and can

329
00:18:41,160 --> 00:18:43,080
Speaker 1: do it. And other counties don't do that, don't do

330
00:18:43,119 --> 00:18:44,960
Speaker 1: that at all. And there's a question of what state

331
00:18:45,040 --> 00:18:48,400
Speaker 1: law requires and in some respects, like I think there's

332
00:18:48,480 --> 00:18:50,280
Speaker 1: trade offs to think about here. On the one hand,

333
00:18:50,320 --> 00:18:53,480
Speaker 1: you can say, listen that the absentee system shouldn't be

334
00:18:54,040 --> 00:18:57,280
Speaker 1: this process of sort of bespoke get out the vote

335
00:18:57,280 --> 00:19:00,359
Speaker 1: efforts from county clerks. On the other hand, you say, well,

336
00:19:00,400 --> 00:19:02,760
Speaker 1: it's reasonable for county clerks to want to make sure

337
00:19:02,800 --> 00:19:05,400
Speaker 1: that the paperwork is complete, just does any other paperwork

338
00:19:05,440 --> 00:19:07,720
Speaker 1: you might file at the county where they're going to say, hey,

339
00:19:07,800 --> 00:19:09,679
Speaker 1: you screwed something up on don't you come fix it.

340
00:19:09,720 --> 00:19:11,880
Speaker 1: But you know, I think the key out of this

341
00:19:12,160 --> 00:19:14,560
Speaker 1: is that we want consistency across the state. And I

342
00:19:14,560 --> 00:19:17,119
Speaker 1: think Republicans are going to want to say, no, the

343
00:19:17,200 --> 00:19:19,160
Speaker 1: law doesn't permit this. We need to have to kind

344
00:19:19,160 --> 00:19:22,200
Speaker 1: of strict compliance and no ability to notify. And Democrats

345
00:19:22,240 --> 00:19:23,879
Speaker 1: are going to say, well, no, the counties should be

346
00:19:23,920 --> 00:19:26,000
Speaker 1: able to notify. I should notify these things. But you know,

347
00:19:26,040 --> 00:19:27,600
Speaker 1: one of the more troubling things is to see this

348
00:19:27,680 --> 00:19:30,560
Speaker 1: inconsistency playing out where in some counties it's one way,

349
00:19:30,560 --> 00:19:32,560
Speaker 1: in other counties it's another way. So I don't know

350
00:19:32,600 --> 00:19:34,440
Speaker 1: how these lawsuits are going to play out at the

351
00:19:34,480 --> 00:19:37,320
Speaker 1: state wide level. Part of this is a technical matter

352
00:19:37,440 --> 00:19:41,240
Speaker 1: of what state law authorizes or doesn't authorize county clerks

353
00:19:41,240 --> 00:19:44,640
Speaker 1: to do, where discretion lies, things like that. But we'll

354
00:19:44,640 --> 00:19:47,000
Speaker 1: see as this one plays out whether or not some

355
00:19:47,119 --> 00:19:48,399
Speaker 1: uniform guidance is given.

356
00:19:48,680 --> 00:19:51,520
Speaker 2: Is it an indication Republicans won a similar case where

357
00:19:51,560 --> 00:19:54,080
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court rule that the ballots that are missing

358
00:19:54,200 --> 00:19:57,160
Speaker 2: dates on the outer envelopes couldn't be counted.

359
00:19:57,440 --> 00:20:00,320
Speaker 1: Yeah, So that Pennsylvania case, again, it really is a

360
00:20:00,400 --> 00:20:04,000
Speaker 1: case thrown out on procedural grounds. Because the plaintiffs in

361
00:20:04,040 --> 00:20:05,960
Speaker 1: that case really they see the Secretary of State, but

362
00:20:06,040 --> 00:20:10,280
Speaker 1: also two counties, just two counties, and maybe not surprisingly,

363
00:20:10,359 --> 00:20:13,520
Speaker 1: Democrats sued the most overwhelmingly to Democratic counties in the

364
00:20:13,520 --> 00:20:16,000
Speaker 1: state to say you should count these ballots, and the

365
00:20:16,040 --> 00:20:19,280
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, in a divided order, said, look, you really

366
00:20:19,320 --> 00:20:21,639
Speaker 1: needed to bring all of the counties in here. I

367
00:20:21,680 --> 00:20:24,760
Speaker 1: think it's laudable to think about wanting consistency. Right, either

368
00:20:25,000 --> 00:20:26,960
Speaker 1: they should all count or they all shouldn't count, but

369
00:20:26,960 --> 00:20:29,760
Speaker 1: there's going to be a consistent rule across the state. Now,

370
00:20:29,800 --> 00:20:31,960
Speaker 1: I mean here it is, you know, the first week

371
00:20:32,000 --> 00:20:35,520
Speaker 1: of October, and we're still engaged in litigation that we've

372
00:20:35,520 --> 00:20:37,680
Speaker 1: known there have been problems about in Pennsylvania for two

373
00:20:37,760 --> 00:20:40,400
Speaker 1: four six years, and again we're at the eleventh hour

374
00:20:40,520 --> 00:20:43,800
Speaker 1: litigating these issues. But yeah, we're watching Republicans and Democrats

375
00:20:43,800 --> 00:20:45,800
Speaker 1: fighting not just about the interpretation of the law, but

376
00:20:45,920 --> 00:20:48,600
Speaker 1: how broadly it applies across a given state.

377
00:20:48,840 --> 00:20:52,040
Speaker 2: So let's go to Mississippi, a state that doesn't seem

378
00:20:52,080 --> 00:20:56,000
Speaker 2: to be in question, but the Republican National Committee and

379
00:20:56,000 --> 00:21:01,360
Speaker 2: the Mississippi Republican Party are challenging Mississippi's on late arriving

380
00:21:01,560 --> 00:21:05,680
Speaker 2: mail in ballots. I mean, this issue I think was litigated,

381
00:21:06,480 --> 00:21:09,720
Speaker 2: has been litigated before in other states. Is there a

382
00:21:09,720 --> 00:21:13,160
Speaker 2: particular significance to this case in Mississippi?

383
00:21:14,119 --> 00:21:16,480
Speaker 1: Right, So the focus here is to say that the

384
00:21:16,520 --> 00:21:20,159
Speaker 1: federal election statute that sets the first Tuesday after the

385
00:21:20,160 --> 00:21:24,160
Speaker 1: first Monday November's election day requires all ballots to come

386
00:21:24,200 --> 00:21:27,240
Speaker 1: in by that day. And you've seen occasional litigation, but

387
00:21:27,280 --> 00:21:29,280
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty, in particular, some of the litigation was

388
00:21:29,320 --> 00:21:31,359
Speaker 1: about some of the late changes to the rules or

389
00:21:31,480 --> 00:21:34,800
Speaker 1: ballots without a postmark, and whether or not those that

390
00:21:34,880 --> 00:21:37,760
Speaker 1: came in three days after the election could still be counted,

391
00:21:38,240 --> 00:21:40,920
Speaker 1: you know, because there's at least some ambiguity about whether

392
00:21:41,040 --> 00:21:43,920
Speaker 1: or not they came in in the deadline, whatever it

393
00:21:44,000 --> 00:21:46,560
Speaker 1: might be. But here, by testing it as a federal

394
00:21:46,680 --> 00:21:49,680
Speaker 1: law issue, you're not dealing with state specific guidelines. And

395
00:21:49,920 --> 00:21:53,280
Speaker 1: suing a Mississippi, you know, is trying to send a

396
00:21:53,320 --> 00:21:55,600
Speaker 1: signal by suing in the Fifth Circuit, which is one

397
00:21:55,600 --> 00:21:58,440
Speaker 1: of the more conservative courts of appeals in the country.

398
00:21:59,080 --> 00:22:00,800
Speaker 1: And you know that case is now on appeal in

399
00:22:00,840 --> 00:22:03,159
Speaker 1: the Fifth Circuit in front of a pretty conservative panel

400
00:22:03,280 --> 00:22:05,920
Speaker 1: to say, well, maybe if we can establish this precedent here,

401
00:22:06,520 --> 00:22:09,440
Speaker 1: we can also establish this precedent nationwide, and this could

402
00:22:09,440 --> 00:22:12,280
Speaker 1: affect hundreds of thousands of votes and maybe hundreds of

403
00:22:12,280 --> 00:22:14,800
Speaker 1: thousand votes in state like California alone, in addition to

404
00:22:14,800 --> 00:22:18,520
Speaker 1: other jurisdictions that might accept ballots after election day. So

405
00:22:18,680 --> 00:22:21,439
Speaker 1: some challenges I think on the merits. You know, states

406
00:22:21,440 --> 00:22:24,720
Speaker 1: have long accepted ballots before election day and treated them

407
00:22:24,760 --> 00:22:27,600
Speaker 1: as well, we're just holding them and then they're actually

408
00:22:27,680 --> 00:22:29,680
Speaker 1: cast on election day. Could you say the same thing

409
00:22:29,760 --> 00:22:31,840
Speaker 1: is true for ballots that are just in the postal

410
00:22:31,880 --> 00:22:35,040
Speaker 1: system for a couple of days before they land at

411
00:22:35,080 --> 00:22:37,359
Speaker 1: the county, as long as they have an adequate postmark,

412
00:22:37,440 --> 00:22:39,840
Speaker 1: things like that. But the effort here is to sue

413
00:22:39,920 --> 00:22:42,159
Speaker 1: in the most sort of favorable jurisdiction and try to

414
00:22:42,160 --> 00:22:44,480
Speaker 1: secure a win that maybe the Supreme Court has to

415
00:22:44,520 --> 00:22:46,920
Speaker 1: take or that maybe can be carried across to other states.

416
00:22:47,000 --> 00:22:49,000
Speaker 1: So we're waiting to see how the Fifth Circuit rules

417
00:22:49,000 --> 00:22:49,480
Speaker 1: on that one.

418
00:22:49,680 --> 00:22:51,520
Speaker 2: The Fifth Circuit, you said, one of the most I

419
00:22:51,520 --> 00:22:55,160
Speaker 2: always say the most the most conservatives.

420
00:22:55,040 --> 00:22:56,879
Speaker 1: That's all. It depends on your metrics, right, I mean,

421
00:22:56,920 --> 00:22:59,960
Speaker 1: there are more Republican appointed judges in the eighth circle,

422
00:23:00,359 --> 00:23:02,760
Speaker 1: but you know, the fifth circuit maybe has more panels

423
00:23:02,760 --> 00:23:05,960
Speaker 1: that are likely to push the law into the some

424
00:23:06,040 --> 00:23:07,480
Speaker 1: of the most conservative directions.

425
00:23:07,480 --> 00:23:09,440
Speaker 3: I suppose I agree with that.

426
00:23:09,960 --> 00:23:12,360
Speaker 2: And coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll

427
00:23:12,400 --> 00:23:16,000
Speaker 2: continue this conversation with Professor Derek Muller of Notre Dame

428
00:23:16,080 --> 00:23:19,439
Speaker 2: Law School. We'll talk about Republican efforts to purge the

429
00:23:19,560 --> 00:23:24,600
Speaker 2: voter rolls in several states. The Republican National Committee says

430
00:23:24,680 --> 00:23:27,800
Speaker 2: it's involved in more than one hundred and twenty lawsuits

431
00:23:27,840 --> 00:23:31,440
Speaker 2: in twenty six states in an aggressive attempt to challenge

432
00:23:31,520 --> 00:23:35,679
Speaker 2: voting rules and election processes. Before November fifth, I've been

433
00:23:35,720 --> 00:23:38,960
Speaker 2: talking to elections law expert Derek Muller, a professor at

434
00:23:38,960 --> 00:23:41,680
Speaker 2: Notre Dame Law School. So, Derek, one of the things

435
00:23:41,720 --> 00:23:46,440
Speaker 2: we hear Republicans complain about over and over, particularly Donald Trump,

436
00:23:47,080 --> 00:23:51,399
Speaker 2: is that ineligible people are voting. Illegal immigrants are voting.

437
00:23:51,480 --> 00:23:55,119
Speaker 2: Dead people are voting, people are voting twice. So in

438
00:23:55,160 --> 00:23:59,040
Speaker 2: some states they're suing to try to purge the voter rolls.

439
00:23:59,400 --> 00:24:01,640
Speaker 2: I think the thought is one of the states right

440
00:24:01,720 --> 00:24:04,359
Speaker 2: where they're trying to purge the voter rolls.

441
00:24:05,359 --> 00:24:08,080
Speaker 1: There are issues all over the country. I mean, so

442
00:24:08,160 --> 00:24:10,240
Speaker 1: part of it is in theory you're not supposed to

443
00:24:10,240 --> 00:24:12,720
Speaker 1: engage in some of this routine list maintenance within ninety

444
00:24:12,800 --> 00:24:15,720
Speaker 1: days of an election under federal law. But there's also

445
00:24:15,800 --> 00:24:18,359
Speaker 1: some questions about like, well some of these issues might

446
00:24:18,359 --> 00:24:21,560
Speaker 1: have been held up earlier, and questions about eligibility. And

447
00:24:21,600 --> 00:24:24,680
Speaker 1: there's no question, I mean, every state has ineligible voters

448
00:24:24,680 --> 00:24:26,920
Speaker 1: on its photo roles. That's just a fact of life.

449
00:24:26,920 --> 00:24:30,480
Speaker 1: When you die, your name isn't immediately removed. It's usually

450
00:24:30,480 --> 00:24:33,719
Speaker 1: removed pretty quickly, often within a month, but not immediately.

451
00:24:33,880 --> 00:24:36,080
Speaker 1: If you move, there might not be evidence that you've

452
00:24:36,080 --> 00:24:38,480
Speaker 1: moved for some time. So there's lots of questions that

453
00:24:38,520 --> 00:24:41,800
Speaker 1: can arise for these voter rolls, and states have list

454
00:24:41,800 --> 00:24:45,080
Speaker 1: maintenance procedures pursue into federal law that they're kind of

455
00:24:45,080 --> 00:24:47,920
Speaker 1: obligated to undertake to try to make sure those photo

456
00:24:47,960 --> 00:24:49,959
Speaker 1: roles are as clean as possible, you know. But at

457
00:24:49,960 --> 00:24:51,960
Speaker 1: the same time, you can think sometimes these are a

458
00:24:51,960 --> 00:24:54,200
Speaker 1: little bit overstated. In most states, if you fail to

459
00:24:54,280 --> 00:24:56,320
Speaker 1: vote for an election or two and there are other

460
00:24:56,359 --> 00:24:58,879
Speaker 1: contingencies than there, they'll move you from active status to

461
00:24:58,960 --> 00:25:02,159
Speaker 1: inactive status, and so inactive voters have to go through

462
00:25:02,160 --> 00:25:05,399
Speaker 1: an additional sort of proof of residency requirement before they

463
00:25:05,400 --> 00:25:07,320
Speaker 1: can move back to active status. So even though the

464
00:25:07,400 --> 00:25:10,199
Speaker 1: voter roules might be bloated in some places, you know,

465
00:25:10,240 --> 00:25:12,800
Speaker 1: you could say, well, there's a number of inactive voters here.

466
00:25:13,119 --> 00:25:15,200
Speaker 1: Maybe they're ineligible, in which case they're not going to vote,

467
00:25:15,200 --> 00:25:17,680
Speaker 1: and maybe they're eligible, in which case they can prove

468
00:25:17,720 --> 00:25:19,760
Speaker 1: it and get their names, you know, moved off of

469
00:25:19,760 --> 00:25:21,879
Speaker 1: one list of the other. So you'll see occasional claims

470
00:25:21,920 --> 00:25:24,800
Speaker 1: about hundreds of thousands of voters removed from the register

471
00:25:25,200 --> 00:25:28,000
Speaker 1: in various states. And no question that states have different

472
00:25:28,400 --> 00:25:31,560
Speaker 1: levels of scrutiny that they give in different aggression that

473
00:25:31,600 --> 00:25:34,760
Speaker 1: they have in terms of keeping those lists clean. But

474
00:25:34,800 --> 00:25:36,040
Speaker 1: you know, at the end of the day, I think

475
00:25:36,080 --> 00:25:39,480
Speaker 1: there are some occasional errors that can be made with

476
00:25:39,720 --> 00:25:43,400
Speaker 1: these ballots. In particular, and states that automatically mail absentee

477
00:25:43,600 --> 00:25:46,560
Speaker 1: voters a ballot, there are concerns that if your voter

478
00:25:46,680 --> 00:25:48,920
Speaker 1: roles aren't clean and you're mailing everyone on the list

479
00:25:49,000 --> 00:25:51,240
Speaker 1: a ballot, like in California, it's going to get to

480
00:25:51,440 --> 00:25:54,199
Speaker 1: a non trivial number of ineligible voters. But you know,

481
00:25:54,320 --> 00:25:56,000
Speaker 1: on the flip side. In most states, if you don't

482
00:25:56,000 --> 00:25:58,600
Speaker 1: have that, or if you have some good procedures, sometimes

483
00:25:58,600 --> 00:26:01,359
Speaker 1: you're just fighting kind of clean up issues. You know,

484
00:26:01,400 --> 00:26:03,800
Speaker 1: how accurate doesn't have to be in a given moment

485
00:26:03,960 --> 00:26:06,280
Speaker 1: to keep people who are eligible on the list and

486
00:26:06,320 --> 00:26:09,080
Speaker 1: take off the ineligible from the list. So we're seeing

487
00:26:09,080 --> 00:26:11,879
Speaker 1: these sort of battles play out. It's Nevada, it's Arizona.

488
00:26:12,400 --> 00:26:14,960
Speaker 1: There's all kinds of places where these things are happening.

489
00:26:15,400 --> 00:26:17,440
Speaker 1: And it's a delicate balance to make sure that we're

490
00:26:17,520 --> 00:26:20,639
Speaker 1: keeping the roles clean for efficiency purposes and keeping eligible

491
00:26:20,680 --> 00:26:23,000
Speaker 1: votes on there while not being so aggressive that, you know,

492
00:26:23,000 --> 00:26:24,800
Speaker 1: if you fail to show up to an election, we're

493
00:26:24,840 --> 00:26:27,320
Speaker 1: somehow taking your name off the list or whatever it

494
00:26:27,400 --> 00:26:30,000
Speaker 1: might be. So these are ongoing issues that have been

495
00:26:30,040 --> 00:26:32,680
Speaker 1: happening for years in the federal court.

496
00:26:32,960 --> 00:26:37,760
Speaker 2: So I'm wondering it's in Arizona that America's first legal

497
00:26:37,800 --> 00:26:42,640
Speaker 2: foundation is suing because they want the court to enforce

498
00:26:43,080 --> 00:26:45,680
Speaker 2: a list of twenty four orders that go with their

499
00:26:45,720 --> 00:26:49,600
Speaker 2: interpretation of election law and correct any errors, et cetera.

500
00:26:49,880 --> 00:26:52,960
Speaker 2: I mean, it seems like it's a very fact intensive

501
00:26:53,680 --> 00:26:58,720
Speaker 2: kind of examination. Is that a trend in litigation or not.

502
00:26:59,080 --> 00:27:01,560
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I think America First is being pretty

503
00:27:01,600 --> 00:27:03,359
Speaker 1: aggressive on this is I think Judicial Watch. There's some

504
00:27:03,400 --> 00:27:05,880
Speaker 1: other organizations you can find that have tried to get

505
00:27:05,880 --> 00:27:08,880
Speaker 1: states to enforce their own motor registration procedures or list

506
00:27:08,920 --> 00:27:12,600
Speaker 1: maintenance procedures over the years. And again you can say,

507
00:27:12,640 --> 00:27:14,600
Speaker 1: I think the State of Arizona's going to come back

508
00:27:14,760 --> 00:27:16,840
Speaker 1: in a very fact contentsive way as you indicated you

509
00:27:16,920 --> 00:27:19,320
Speaker 1: and to say, look, we are doing this. It might

510
00:27:19,320 --> 00:27:21,359
Speaker 1: not be on the timeline you want. It might not

511
00:27:21,480 --> 00:27:25,080
Speaker 1: be with the level of scrutiny that you're suggesting. You know,

512
00:27:25,160 --> 00:27:26,880
Speaker 1: you want us to look at, you know, this kind

513
00:27:26,920 --> 00:27:29,600
Speaker 1: of birth date and middle initial, we're looking at the

514
00:27:29,640 --> 00:27:32,080
Speaker 1: full middle name or whatever it might be. There are

515
00:27:32,119 --> 00:27:34,480
Speaker 1: ways of sort of doing the verification checks. There's ways

516
00:27:34,480 --> 00:27:38,520
Speaker 1: in which there's administrative deference given to say we're going

517
00:27:38,560 --> 00:27:41,639
Speaker 1: to purge maybe every coreer when somebody wants you to

518
00:27:41,640 --> 00:27:44,320
Speaker 1: purge every month, or whatever it might be. So these

519
00:27:44,359 --> 00:27:48,480
Speaker 1: can be really specific minutia of is there an administrative

520
00:27:48,520 --> 00:27:51,720
Speaker 1: guide in the state that's validly promulgated by the Secretary

521
00:27:51,760 --> 00:27:54,560
Speaker 1: of State about what you can and can't do in

522
00:27:54,600 --> 00:27:57,600
Speaker 1: these circumstances. Are these things just left the discretion of

523
00:27:57,600 --> 00:28:00,680
Speaker 1: election officials under state law, or if it's discretion, are

524
00:28:00,680 --> 00:28:04,680
Speaker 1: these officials abusing their discretion by so flagrantly ignoring what

525
00:28:04,720 --> 00:28:08,560
Speaker 1: the state law requires. So it's highly fact intensive, and

526
00:28:08,840 --> 00:28:11,879
Speaker 1: you know, I'm not confident in any particular outcome in

527
00:28:11,960 --> 00:28:14,920
Speaker 1: any of these cases, but it's really sort of picking

528
00:28:14,960 --> 00:28:17,080
Speaker 1: at some of the edges of a lot of these issues.

529
00:28:17,080 --> 00:28:19,280
Speaker 1: For the most part, in these jurisdictions, it's usually not

530
00:28:19,320 --> 00:28:23,119
Speaker 1: sort of a wholesale ignoring of election law. Under state law, again,

531
00:28:23,160 --> 00:28:25,040
Speaker 1: secretaries of the state have every incentive to try to

532
00:28:25,119 --> 00:28:27,040
Speaker 1: keep the lists clean. It's a question more of some

533
00:28:27,080 --> 00:28:29,000
Speaker 1: of the pragmatics and about what you think the most

534
00:28:29,000 --> 00:28:31,320
Speaker 1: effective means are. To be frank right, the plaintiffs in

535
00:28:31,320 --> 00:28:34,120
Speaker 1: these cases have a different thought about what we most effective,

536
00:28:34,119 --> 00:28:35,800
Speaker 1: and if they were the running the secretary of State's

537
00:28:35,800 --> 00:28:38,600
Speaker 1: office and lost the last election in Arizona, for instance,

538
00:28:38,680 --> 00:28:40,720
Speaker 1: you know they might have had different procedures in place.

539
00:28:40,760 --> 00:28:42,680
Speaker 1: But these are some of the challenges that you have

540
00:28:42,760 --> 00:28:45,680
Speaker 1: when something is typically left to the executive and then

541
00:28:45,680 --> 00:28:47,440
Speaker 1: you sort of have these lawsuits coming in over the

542
00:28:47,480 --> 00:28:49,480
Speaker 1: top insisting things should be done in a different way.

543
00:28:49,680 --> 00:28:52,480
Speaker 2: You know, there was a lot of questioning of how

544
00:28:52,520 --> 00:28:56,840
Speaker 2: the changes in election boards and different changes at that

545
00:28:56,960 --> 00:29:01,360
Speaker 2: level would affect the counting, etc. And there's a lawsuit

546
00:29:01,400 --> 00:29:05,400
Speaker 2: in Georgia challenging the state election boards decision to allow

547
00:29:05,440 --> 00:29:09,920
Speaker 2: its members to conduct a reasonable inquiry into an election's

548
00:29:09,960 --> 00:29:13,320
Speaker 2: results before certifying them. I'm not sure what a reasonable

549
00:29:13,320 --> 00:29:16,160
Speaker 2: inquiry is and how that differs from what they have

550
00:29:16,320 --> 00:29:16,800
Speaker 2: been doing.

551
00:29:17,320 --> 00:29:20,280
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, that's I think the real question. There's

552
00:29:20,440 --> 00:29:24,600
Speaker 1: already state law that kind of authorizes this. The election

553
00:29:24,720 --> 00:29:31,120
Speaker 1: board adds this language into the administrative code, but it's

554
00:29:31,160 --> 00:29:33,160
Speaker 1: not formally out of state law. It something you could

555
00:29:33,200 --> 00:29:35,880
Speaker 1: probably infer from state law, but not formally in state law.

556
00:29:36,000 --> 00:29:39,800
Speaker 1: Then it's not something that is specifically defined even in

557
00:29:39,800 --> 00:29:42,920
Speaker 1: the administrative code. So you can imagine situations where an

558
00:29:42,920 --> 00:29:44,920
Speaker 1: election boards the elections on Tuesday and the board has

559
00:29:44,920 --> 00:29:47,800
Speaker 1: to certify by Monday. That's six days. So whatever reasonable

560
00:29:47,840 --> 00:29:50,480
Speaker 1: inquirer mean, it can't mean a whole lot. But you

561
00:29:50,480 --> 00:29:53,120
Speaker 1: can imagine you have eighteen precincts and you only get

562
00:29:53,120 --> 00:29:56,440
Speaker 1: seventeen sets of results, and you'd say, well, wait a minute,

563
00:29:56,520 --> 00:29:58,960
Speaker 1: let's go find out where that eighteenth sheet is. I

564
00:29:58,960 --> 00:30:02,280
Speaker 1: think that's a reasonable inquae. One of the precincts reports

565
00:30:02,400 --> 00:30:05,480
Speaker 1: zero votes cast a lot, let's go figure out what happened.

566
00:30:05,560 --> 00:30:08,880
Speaker 1: Or one precinct indicates a million votes cast, we probably

567
00:30:08,880 --> 00:30:10,720
Speaker 1: want to look into that too. So there's ways in

568
00:30:10,760 --> 00:30:12,920
Speaker 1: which you could have imagined quite benign and I think

569
00:30:12,960 --> 00:30:15,520
Speaker 1: quite reasonable, ways in which the board, before it feels

570
00:30:15,600 --> 00:30:17,080
Speaker 1: like it can certify a result, wants to make sure

571
00:30:17,080 --> 00:30:18,680
Speaker 1: it has all the paperwork in front of it. The

572
00:30:18,720 --> 00:30:21,120
Speaker 1: real challenge is you have an undefined term, you've injected

573
00:30:21,160 --> 00:30:23,000
Speaker 1: it in the administrative code. Is this going to give

574
00:30:23,040 --> 00:30:26,080
Speaker 1: some pretext or some coverage to election officials who are saying, no, no,

575
00:30:26,160 --> 00:30:28,520
Speaker 1: now I get to go, you know, ask for the

576
00:30:28,520 --> 00:30:30,680
Speaker 1: inside of the voting machines, or now I want to

577
00:30:30,720 --> 00:30:34,320
Speaker 1: manually tabulate this batch from this precinct because I'm skeptical

578
00:30:34,400 --> 00:30:36,600
Speaker 1: or whatever it might be. So I think the question

579
00:30:36,720 --> 00:30:40,760
Speaker 1: is spinning out forward how a phrase like this could

580
00:30:40,840 --> 00:30:43,920
Speaker 1: be used or misused by election officials going forward. So

581
00:30:44,040 --> 00:30:46,280
Speaker 1: it's in one sense it's kind of benign on its face.

582
00:30:47,240 --> 00:30:48,800
Speaker 1: In other sense, it's like, well, it could be used

583
00:30:48,800 --> 00:30:50,400
Speaker 1: as a pretext, and I think that's what people are

584
00:30:50,400 --> 00:30:53,800
Speaker 1: concerned about, how it might be used in unknown future situations.

585
00:30:54,200 --> 00:30:57,920
Speaker 2: Yeah, because I think a fear is that, especially in

586
00:30:57,960 --> 00:31:02,120
Speaker 2: these close states, in these battle on states that really count,

587
00:31:02,640 --> 00:31:06,800
Speaker 2: that there'll be some kind of refusal to certify or

588
00:31:07,240 --> 00:31:11,760
Speaker 2: the boards of elections will mishandle the vote. I mean,

589
00:31:11,800 --> 00:31:15,000
Speaker 2: there's a lot of concern that at the state level

590
00:31:15,560 --> 00:31:17,760
Speaker 2: there won't be a fair count.

591
00:31:18,280 --> 00:31:20,640
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean I think if you have you have

592
00:31:20,680 --> 00:31:23,240
Speaker 1: the tabulations from the precincts that are given to the county,

593
00:31:23,320 --> 00:31:26,600
Speaker 1: and anytime that a county board or any entity is

594
00:31:26,600 --> 00:31:28,920
Speaker 1: going to change or alter the votes, I mean, you

595
00:31:29,000 --> 00:31:32,800
Speaker 1: have the before and after numbers. So you know, four

596
00:31:32,880 --> 00:31:35,120
Speaker 1: years ago, I was in Iowa and there was a

597
00:31:35,160 --> 00:31:38,880
Speaker 1: congressional district race that was very close and twice precincts

598
00:31:39,360 --> 00:31:41,840
Speaker 1: in an election that was the site ultimately by six votes.

599
00:31:42,480 --> 00:31:46,120
Speaker 1: Precincts found mistakes they made in their results as they

600
00:31:46,120 --> 00:31:48,000
Speaker 1: were going through the canvas, and so they have their

601
00:31:48,000 --> 00:31:51,000
Speaker 1: first results, the unofficial ones, and then they had to

602
00:31:51,040 --> 00:31:54,280
Speaker 1: update them with official ones, ones that flipped hundreds of votes.

603
00:31:54,960 --> 00:31:56,800
Speaker 1: So you have that record, right, you have the sort

604
00:31:56,840 --> 00:31:59,480
Speaker 1: of before and after, and you have the explanation. So

605
00:31:59,520 --> 00:32:02,360
Speaker 1: as an electtiontion board does something, you know, it gets

606
00:32:02,440 --> 00:32:04,920
Speaker 1: the results and we're not going to certify. Well, that's easy.

607
00:32:04,920 --> 00:32:06,680
Speaker 1: We have the vote total or it says, you know,

608
00:32:06,720 --> 00:32:09,080
Speaker 1: the vote margin here is Trump by one thousand, but

609
00:32:09,120 --> 00:32:11,000
Speaker 1: we're going to say it was Trump by eight thousand.

610
00:32:11,480 --> 00:32:14,520
Speaker 1: So again just making up numbers you have before and

611
00:32:14,560 --> 00:32:17,360
Speaker 1: after results. So there's typically going to be an easy

612
00:32:17,400 --> 00:32:19,880
Speaker 1: process if somebody disputes that to go into court and

613
00:32:19,920 --> 00:32:22,880
Speaker 1: say they didn't certify, can you order them to certify,

614
00:32:23,360 --> 00:32:25,160
Speaker 1: or if they won't certify court, can you do it

615
00:32:25,200 --> 00:32:28,959
Speaker 1: for them? They certified this new total where they fiddled

616
00:32:29,000 --> 00:32:30,840
Speaker 1: with the results, can you go back to the old

617
00:32:30,880 --> 00:32:33,560
Speaker 1: total because they had no basis in doing so. So

618
00:32:33,600 --> 00:32:37,160
Speaker 1: I think there's no question that there's concern about meddling

619
00:32:37,160 --> 00:32:40,840
Speaker 1: an election process, about all terrain totals, about dragging your

620
00:32:40,840 --> 00:32:44,440
Speaker 1: feet or trying to deny subvert the winner, and that

621
00:32:44,560 --> 00:32:48,920
Speaker 1: has major political consequences, public perception consequences. I think those

622
00:32:48,920 --> 00:32:52,520
Speaker 1: are bad things, But I think there's also a strand

623
00:32:52,560 --> 00:32:54,719
Speaker 1: to think about what's the legal effect of this. At

624
00:32:54,720 --> 00:32:57,880
Speaker 1: the end of the day, it might delay some certification

625
00:32:58,000 --> 00:33:00,640
Speaker 1: by a day or two, maybe in some places, but

626
00:33:00,720 --> 00:33:02,600
Speaker 1: to the extent that the courts step in and say

627
00:33:02,680 --> 00:33:06,120
Speaker 1: you really have no basis whatsoever to do this, I

628
00:33:06,120 --> 00:33:08,480
Speaker 1: think you're going to see courts move in swiftly as

629
00:33:08,520 --> 00:33:10,640
Speaker 1: they have done the last four years when election boards

630
00:33:10,640 --> 00:33:13,040
Speaker 1: have tried this in the past. Obviously a lot more

631
00:33:13,040 --> 00:33:15,600
Speaker 1: pressure and a presidential election, but we'll see how it

632
00:33:15,640 --> 00:33:16,120
Speaker 1: plays out.

633
00:33:16,520 --> 00:33:19,360
Speaker 2: You're more hopeful than I am.

634
00:33:19,960 --> 00:33:24,720
Speaker 1: We can anticipate all of the worst case disaster scenarios,

635
00:33:24,720 --> 00:33:26,840
Speaker 1: there's no question, and think about what those things are

636
00:33:26,880 --> 00:33:29,320
Speaker 1: supposed to do. But you know, we still have a

637
00:33:29,360 --> 00:33:32,040
Speaker 1: lot of courts that step in and they you know,

638
00:33:32,240 --> 00:33:34,280
Speaker 1: you can file as many lawsuits as you want in

639
00:33:34,280 --> 00:33:36,480
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, it's not going to change the results of

640
00:33:36,000 --> 00:33:38,600
Speaker 1: the election. You know, you could talk about Georgia where

641
00:33:38,960 --> 00:33:41,360
Speaker 1: she was on the other foot for Democrats in twenty eighteen,

642
00:33:41,520 --> 00:33:43,120
Speaker 1: and really there's not going to be a change in

643
00:33:43,160 --> 00:33:46,480
Speaker 1: the results despite filing lawsuits, whatever it might be. So

644
00:33:46,880 --> 00:33:48,680
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, the system's pretty resilient.

645
00:33:49,320 --> 00:33:53,840
Speaker 1: Now again, there's major political questions, there's major public perception

646
00:33:54,080 --> 00:33:57,360
Speaker 1: questions about democratic legitimacy, and it's not good to have

647
00:33:57,400 --> 00:33:59,800
Speaker 1: a public that doubts the outcome of the election, or

648
00:33:59,800 --> 00:34:03,640
Speaker 1: that you have a public officials sewing distrust baselessly because

649
00:34:03,680 --> 00:34:05,880
Speaker 1: it's a way of fundraising, it's a way of whipping

650
00:34:05,960 --> 00:34:09,799
Speaker 1: up frenzy. Those are not good things, but there's a

651
00:34:09,800 --> 00:34:11,279
Speaker 1: piece to say. Listen, at the end of the day,

652
00:34:11,520 --> 00:34:13,600
Speaker 1: the winner is going to take office and the loser

653
00:34:13,640 --> 00:34:15,239
Speaker 1: is going to go home, and that's the way the

654
00:34:15,239 --> 00:34:17,880
Speaker 1: system is supposed to operate. So I'm optimistic on a

655
00:34:17,960 --> 00:34:20,640
Speaker 1: legal side. I might be less optimistic on the political

656
00:34:20,640 --> 00:34:23,480
Speaker 1: and public perception side, but there's only so much we

657
00:34:23,480 --> 00:34:24,640
Speaker 1: can do to control both things.

658
00:34:24,719 --> 00:34:27,760
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Derek for your explanations of these

659
00:34:28,080 --> 00:34:32,360
Speaker 2: often confusing election law issues. That's Professor Derek Muller of

660
00:34:32,440 --> 00:34:35,080
Speaker 2: Notre Dame Law School, and that's it for this edition

661
00:34:35,080 --> 00:34:37,759
Speaker 2: of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get

662
00:34:37,760 --> 00:34:40,920
Speaker 2: the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You

663
00:34:40,920 --> 00:34:45,000
Speaker 2: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www

664
00:34:45,160 --> 00:34:49,440
Speaker 2: dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember

665
00:34:49,480 --> 00:34:52,439
Speaker 2: to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at

666
00:34:52,440 --> 00:34:55,920
Speaker 2: ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and you're

667
00:34:56,040 --> 00:34:57,239
Speaker 2: listening to Bloomberg