October 29, 2020 • 43 mins
We’ve always said that this series was about so much more than this election. As we’ve shown in the first four episodes, the voting issues of our past — and how we respond to them — pave the way forward, shaping future elections, including the history-making moment we are living in today. But now that we’re face-to-face with the 2020 presidential race, it’s time to start diving into it. On this episode of Turnout with Katie Couric, Katie sorts through some of the week’s big election stories. Then, an interview with newly retired top GOP election lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg about his blunt and public rebuke of President Trump’s baseless claims of voter fraud. Ginsberg talks about the inherent difference between Republican and Democratic election policy, the impact of the 2000 Florida recount, and why Democrats’ worst fears about what could happen after November 3 may be unfounded.
Read Benjamin Ginsberg’s Washington Post op-eds:
Republicans have insufficient evidence to call elections ‘rigged’ and ‘fraudulent’
How Trump’s evidence-free attacks on elections damage the Republican party
Stream Recount on Amazon Prime, HBO Max, or HULU.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
We've always said that this series is about so much
more than just this election. As we've shown in our
first four episodes, the voting issues of our past and
how our country responds to them, paid the way forward
shaping future elections, including the history making moment we're living
in today. But now here we are just days away
(00:26):
from the presidential election, and I don't know about you,
but I have severe asset indigestion. So before getting into
our main interview today, I wanted to dive into some
of this week's big election stories. So the good news,
particularly for a show called Turnout, is that people are
turning out to vote in droves. By this recording, Americans
(00:50):
have cast over seventy one million early ballots, which is
more than half of all ballots cast and the two
thousand and sixteen election. People are mailing them in voting early,
making a plan for election day. It's so inspiring. I,
for one, called a lot of my friends to make
sure they were getting their asses to the polls. I'm
(01:12):
calling to see if you voted, or you have a
voting plan. Catherine yet calling to see if you voted
already submitted by a mail in ballot yesterday. Good but
(01:33):
the rules about how and when those votes will be
counted are the subject of a political tug of war
in some key states, states like Wisconsin, where the Supreme
Court had to step in with the decision on October
in another major blow to Democrats, Wisconsin can't count mailed
in ballots received after election day if it's not close.
(01:55):
In Wisconsin, it doesn't matter. If it comes down like
it did last time to tens of thousands of votes.
This could very easily make up the difference between who
ends up winning this election. The Wisconsin ruling is just
the latest in a flurry of election year decisions that,
rather than grant leeway because of the pandemic is Democrats argue,
have mostly sided with Republicans, keeping voting restrictions in place.
(02:21):
Texas Supreme Court just issued a ruling essentially shutting the
door on allowing all Texans to vote by mail during
the coronavirus pandemic, and the US Supreme Court blocked a
lower court from allowing curbside voting in Alabama. Another change
in the witness signature debate for South Carolina absentee ballots.
There's been so much back and forth. Finally, the Supreme
(02:41):
Court ruled that those signatures are required, and there are
more cases like these that could be affected by Judge
Amy Coney Barrett's swift descent to the highest court in
the land. This was a rigorous confirmation process, and I
thank all of you, especially Later McConnell and Chairman Graham,
(03:02):
for helping me to navigate it. It's a privilege to
be asked to serve my country in this office, and
I stand here tonight truly honored and humbled. While it's
true that this political tug of war has always happened
as each party vised for power every election, this year
(03:22):
is different. Mail in voting has surged this year as
Americans seek to avoid crowds at polling places, even as
Trump repeatedly claimed without evidence that it leads to voter fraud.
Because the President of the United States has taken fears
of voter fraud to a new level, a level that
questions the integrity of the entire election process. This is
(03:46):
going to be a fraud like you've never seen. Thousands
of votes are gathered and they come in and they
dumped in a location, and then all of a sudden,
you lose elections. If you think you're gonna win. You know,
so many years I've been watching elections and they say
the projected winner the winner of the election. I don't
want to see that take place in a week after
November third, or a month or frankly, with litigation and
(04:09):
everything else that can happen years, years, or you never
even know who won the election. I'm Katie Kuric, and
this is turnout. Can you or the White House staff,
where your camp anner by any evidence to back up
your claim the mail in voting his wife with fraud
like the example you gave a people working in rooms
filling out a false ballance And where's the evidence? I
(04:33):
think there's a lot of evidence, but will provide you
with some, okay, and as evidence as being compiled. Just
today on the podcast, an interview with an unlikely critic
of President Trump. The president's rhetoric, unproven rhetoric, the fact
that there is not sufficient evidence to show systematic fraud.
Did flip the switch, because that's where your responsibility comes in.
(04:58):
Benjamin Ginsburg is a Republican election lawyer who just retired
in August after thirty eight years and the GOP trenches.
Now he's spending his time writing op eds, and one
that got my attention back in September was a surprisingly
blunt rebuke of the president's baseless claims that the electoral
(05:19):
system is rigged. The sanctity of elections and making sure
they're done properly should be of of deep concern to everyone.
It really is the foundation of the democracy. And for
the forty years that I'd been working in Republican politics,
I was either inter precinct or part of a sort
(05:43):
of a roving lawyer team in a state for running
a nationwide program where we were talking to people in
polling places to see what the problems were. Republicans being
probably back since the days of Tammany Hall and the
big city machine means have been suspicious of fraudulent elections,
(06:04):
in vote rigging, so we've always looked for it. And
every state law has provisions for poll watchers or election observers,
and both parties should take full advantage of that, because
it's very important to have your people in a polling
place to look for problems, and so we've we've done that. Now.
(06:26):
There were sort of sporadic instances of fraud that came
to light, but never nothing that would justify a president
of the United States. Really, any candidate saying our elections
are fraudulent and they're rigged, and the only way I
can lose is if they cheat because they're simply is
(06:46):
not evidence to support that, and so to say otherwise
is completely destructive. So I think that this has brought
us into new and in dangerous territory. And the fact
that I had been a part of those programs for
so many years meant that I thought I had a
perspective on it. And what concerns you the most about
(07:09):
the rhetoric we're hearing undermining our electoral process from the
President of the United States himself. Well, you see it
reflected in the polls this cycle, where a dangerously and
shocking the high number of people say they're not sure
that the election is going to be valid and the
(07:30):
results accurate. And that's really a product of presidential rhetoric
and certainly not a product of any real evidence. Well,
let me ask you this, to play devil's advocate. We've
never had an election quite like this, obviously been in
the midst of a of a pandemic, with really unprecedented
(07:55):
number of mail in ballots. And I'm curious, is if
you think that that might provide fertile ground for the
kind of election fraud that some people in the specifically
in the Republican Party or warning us up. Well, first
(08:16):
of all, I think there are two sides to the coin,
and we should we should talk about that. So there
is a huge difference between a rhetorical fuseillade that elections
are fraudulent or rigged and actually being able to show
that in a way that would taint the results of
an election. And rather than than talking at a rally
(08:41):
or uh making threats in a tweet, you will really
have to go precinct by precinct and find specific instances
of fraud. They can find specific instances of fraud, it
should be rooted out and uh and corrected. But to
be able to actually throw the results of the election
(09:04):
in doubt, there will have to be ballots that are
called into questions. Now, I don't believe that there will
be a specific number of individual ballots that can be
called into question, and mass challenges have always been frowned
upon in as a matter of law and in legal proceedings.
(09:27):
So I think that feelings have been reved up to
a much higher degree in this election but I think
the results in the casting and counting of ballots themselves
will will be done in a way that there will
be verifiable results of the election. How can you assure
(09:49):
listeners of that that the systems are in fact in
place that will prevent and penalize any kind of voter fraud,
even if it is in fact very sporadic. Well, I
think that's I think it's true on a number of levels.
First of all is that you can go back and
look at instances of fraud that have been uncovered and prosecuted. Um.
(10:14):
Rarely is it enough to overturn the results of an election,
but sometimes. There was a congressional race in North Carolina
in two thousand and eighteen where there were illegalities found,
so a new election was held. There have been elections
in Paterson, New Jersey, UH in this past year where
there was found to be systemic fraud and that was corrected. Um.
(10:40):
But at the end of the day, I think people
can take a degree of certitude knowing that their ballots
are going to be counted in their community by their neighbors.
The US system has over ten thousand five jurisdictions with
with some degree of authority for the asting and counting
(11:00):
of ballots. In a normal year, over a million people
will volunteer to be poll watchers. They are all people
from your communities. And um I was co chair of
a presidential commission, bipartisan commission back in two thousand, thirteen
and fourteen, where we got to spend an extraordinary amount
of time meeting the actual people from the communities on
(11:25):
the state, county, uh and local levels who are responsible
for conducting elections. And I take a great amount of
solitude in in knowing how good those people are and
how much they do care. Having said that, what was
your reaction, Ben, when you started hearing Donald Trump, President
(11:46):
Donald Trump and other high ranking Republicans start laying the
groundwork for an all out assault on our democratic process. Well,
I'm not or that they laid the groundwork for an
all out assault. I think they used irresponsible and regrettable rhetoric.
(12:09):
But again, the groundwork for an assault would require challenging
on a local level in a very granular fashion. And
the battleground states, with the exception of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan,
have all begun to process their absentee ballots already. The
(12:30):
mail in votes that we've been reading are coming in
in such heavy quantity. Uh, And there have not been
those wide scale challenges, so at least so far, that's
been more rhetoric than reality. Hold that thought. Will be
right back after this short break. Let's return to my
(13:02):
interview with Republican election lawyer Ben Ginsburg. Let's talk about
these legal battles. The r n C and the Trump
reelection campaign, as you know, have doubled their legal budget
to twenty million dollars. I think you called it a
torrent of voting litigation already under way. What up with that? Ben? Well,
(13:27):
So it's an interesting it's an interesting phenomenon, and I
think you need to take a step back to appreciate it.
I in two thousand and ten, Republicans did very well
in the Obama mid terms and took control of the
number of state legislators and one a number of governorships,
(13:47):
and then increased that in in two thousand and twelve
on the state and local level. That gave Republicans the
ability to pass legislation that they felt gave them an
advantage in the electoral context. And so they did pass
any number of laws. Uh. The the Clinton forces and
(14:11):
really much more of the Biden forces decided that they
would go to court to try and turned back those
pieces of legislation that Republicans passed. Now, before we start
clicking our tongues at the bad Republicans for doing that,
recognized that when Democrats won control of the Nevada legislature
(14:34):
and governorship and the New Jersey legislature and governorship, they
have now since two thousand and eighteen, passed the Democratic
version of legislation that helps them in elections. So it's
something that both parties do. The RNC sued the Democrats
after they passed that legislation. The Republicans have been more
(14:57):
successful in this past decade in winning legislatures, and so
they have passed any number of laws that the Democrats
don't like, and the Democrats have gone to court, both
federal and state to try and redress it. Now that
the shoe is a little bit on the other foot,
after the two thousand and eighteen elections, Democrats have passed
their bills and Republicans have gone to court. So the
(15:22):
weight of the legislation is really because Republicans did better
in elections earlier in the decade. Well, this seems pretty
left up to me, Ben, I mean, why aren't these
election laws so malleable depending on who's in power? Can't they?
I mean, I guess that's that's our system of government.
But it seems a little screwed up to me. Well,
(15:44):
I you know, I think that they are policy choices
that get made in legislation. It happens in laws involving elections.
It certainly happens in laws involving taxes or the environment
or any other issue that you want to choose. There
are differences between the power the parties, and when one
(16:07):
party gets in power, they have a tendency to want
to pass their agenda. I get that the voting should
be sacristan saying, don't you think, Well, I think that
there are there are disagreements in policy over elections. Republicans
tend to fear fraud and Democrats tend to fear suppression.
(16:28):
And in one of the other underlying phenomenons that's grown
in the country over the last thirty years is polarization,
so that there are very few undecided voters at this
point in an election. That means that each party's go
to their base to try and energize their basis to
(16:49):
come out, and so the rhetoric and the foundational work
that gets done reflects that, And that is what I
think you're saying is bad. And you know that, Um,
that's a much bigger phenomenon than just elections and voting.
Do you believe that concern about voter fraud can inevitably
(17:11):
lead to voter suppression? Well, I think that they are
in some ways two sides of the same coin. And
I think that not all the laws that are accused
of being suppression are suppression. And as I've written, I
think many of the charges about fraud or wrong. But
(17:31):
I think unfortunately the fraud versus suppression narrative has creeped
into the get out the vote plans of both parties,
and as you try and energize your base with red
meat rhetoric, which is what we do these days, on
both sides, Republicans are gonna yell fraud, Democrats are gonna
(17:54):
yell suppression. That probably does energize their base. But what
I think you're rightly pointing to is what about people
in the middle of the spectrum who are not hard partisans,
who really kind of went away the candidates and the
issues and vote one way or the other. They hear
the loud decibels about fraud and suppression and think, wow,
(18:16):
that's a hassle for me to go to the polls.
So I'm not going to go to the polls. Can
you give me an example of a Republican law, state
law passed by a Republican controlled legislature regarding voting and
one that might have been passed by a Democratic legislature.
I well, I mean, let's let's take a look at
(18:41):
at the date in which absentee ballots need to be
received by a state. So the at least the cases
that are going up to the Supreme Court are ones
where Republicans voted to have all absentee ballots received in
the polling place on election day. The current Democrats have
(19:02):
been convinced that, uh, it is better really for them
to get more votes in to be able to extend
the deadlines on the receipt of absentee ballots. So any
ballot postmarked by election day can be received three days,
six days, twelve days after an election. So a Republican
(19:24):
legislature would pass election day receipt and a Democratic legislature
has passed some days afterwards. If there is so little fraud,
why is the Republican Party passing all these laws preventing
fraud if if experience tells us that there is very
(19:49):
little fraud. So the the credibility of our elections also
depends on their appearance. In other words, can voters take
confidence that's that it's a system with some standards so
that cheating and fraud don't go on. In other words,
the appearance of impropriety is recognized, for example, in campaign
(20:14):
finance laws, which I'm sure you love to justify limitations
on the size of contributions. That's there hasn't been a
finding of impropriety, it's an appearance of impropriety. The same
holds true in the election contest that you do need
to put some standards on it, whether it's showing voter
(20:36):
identification when you go into the polls or a signature
match on an absentee ballot, to give voters after the
election some elements of proof that in fact, all the
votes are legitimate. You outright asked Republicans to quote take
a hard look before advocating laws that actually do limit
(20:59):
the franchise of otherwise qualified voters. Yeah, I think that's
important for Republicans to do. I think that's not always
enough of the equation in in all these states, I
think it is important to to make it easy for
people to vote. To give you an example, Republicans have
(21:22):
all of a sudden gone negative on drop boxes, where
voters can take their ballots and drop them in a box,
and that's the way it gets uh. They get processed encountered,
so they don't have to stand in lines either in
early voting. They don't have to trust the mails by
by mailing them through the postal service the drop box.
(21:44):
Republicans for some reason have decided the drop boxes are
a bad idea that to me is a barrier two voters.
That that makes little or no sense. And I don't
think it's right that the Republican Party in a number
of states they in that position. When we come back,
(22:04):
being Ginsburg throws water on the president's byery claims and
the Democrats worst post election fears. Why do you think
(22:24):
President Trump is saying fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud whenever
he gets a chance. No, I don't know. I'm a
humble lawyer, not a psychiatrist, so I'm not sure I
really know the answer. To that question. Come on, Ben,
you know the answer? Well, I know, why tell me
the answer? I think because he wants to be able
to delegitimize the election. Play that out for me, Katie,
(22:50):
What would play that out for me? How does that happen?
So I don't know. I mean I think he said
I'm not sure. Here wait a second, but let's say
what if he says, Ben, let's just let's just play
this out, like you said, what if he says that
there's voter fraud it's everywhere, and some of these Republican legislatures,
(23:13):
you know, agree with him, or people who he has
in his pocket agree with him, and then he can
hold the entire country hostage by saying this isn't legitimate.
I don't know that it's honestly, it's honestly not the
way it works. That's why I said before that there's
(23:34):
a massive difference between talking about fraud and trying to
de legitimize an election and having the proof of that
in a state election process. And that that's why I
think the the notion that that he's somehow going to
(23:56):
disrupt the whole country is a little bit overblown. Is
like you, no one can exactly say the steps that
it would take to get from O G. Everything's fraudulent
to actually stopping the certification of a vote and the
naming of a slate of electors in in any state.
(24:18):
So it's a case of all talk. But if you
did have to hypothesize, ben, how someone might try to
go about delegitimizing uh, the election results, How might one
do that if one was so inclined, Well, I think
I think the hypothetical that I did discussing one of
(24:42):
those Washington Post top eds was that the campaign, the
Trump campaign would quite cynically engage in mass challenges of
voters as they went into polling places on grounds of
registration and then in the accounting of let's on the
(25:02):
validity of absentees as they came in. But it would
have to be massive blunderbus challenges. So, if the polls
are to be believed, um in the key battleground states,
that are not enough challenges. Now, if the results are
considerably closer, right, and this does hinge on the results
(25:26):
in in any of the battleground states being really close,
then it might be possible to to challenge enough ballots
to hold up a certificate of election, so that so
that the electoral college would would get a little bit murky. Well,
what would happen if it's close enough that you could
(25:48):
challenge the results in these key battleground states, Um, you know,
take me through that. Then what would happens? Well, I
mean it depends on the state. So, uh, you know,
there there are so many there's so many variables and
different pieces that would have to fall into place, uh,
(26:08):
that you would be tempted to say it's impossible, except
Florida happened in two thousands, so not impossible, but it's
really highly unlikely. Uh. What what would have to happen
is that I guess the electoral college nobody would have
two seventy votes when all the states that could tabulate
(26:30):
their ballots did, and there would be one, two or
three states that were within the margins of closeness set
by state law, which is either point two percent or
point five of of the difference between the two candidates,
and so there would be a recount or a contest.
(26:53):
And you know, when they're that close, there are always
ballots that that can be disputed. But that's also part
of the legitimate process. If an election is closed to
go through a recounter a contest. Do you think we
might get to the point where the Supreme Court decides
who the next President of the United States is this
(27:13):
go around? Well, I mean, I think it's I think
it's really really unlikely, and I think the greatest chances
that will have a pretty clear indication of a winner,
if not election night, within a couple of days of that,
I think given the all the absentees that have been found,
it may take a week or two longer. I think, Uh,
(27:39):
you know, the election has been so close and contested
that it's been thrown in doubt three times out of
the fifty seven that we've had. So I'm gonna take
a wild guess that there's a five point two chance
of it being that, and so in that scenario, it
might end up going to the Supreme Court. But that
(28:02):
hasn't happened often in our history, and it's a mistake
to bet against history. Let's talk about two thousand, because
you were imminently involved in the recount in Florida. Bob
Balibon played you in the movie Recount. Did you like
that casting, by the way, Ben, Yeah, I mean, I
(28:22):
don't know. Somebody must have been somebody must have thought
I was short and bald? Are we gonna win? Mr? Ginsburgh?
By tomorrow morning, the stains of Bill Clinton will be
washed away, an honor and dignity will finally be restored
to the White House. Let me just point out, Let
(28:44):
me just point out about the casting that I thought
Bob Balaban was terrific, But Michael Hooley, who was by
opposite on the Democratic side, is both shorter and balder
than I am. And he was played by Dennis O'Leary
as six ft two, uh each guy with a full
head of hair. So I'm just going to throw that
out as a casting example of the film. Duly noted,
(29:09):
duly noted? But how insane was it for you? It
made by the way it made me want to rewatch
recount tonight because I was covering that every day when
I was at the Today Show. I mean, was that
completely insane? Yes, it certainly was. Just remember when you
rewatch it that we won the recount and they won
(29:30):
the movie. Well, I guess it depends on who you were.
Who are you rooting for for president? Right? Well, I'm
just saying that's a statement effect, but you know, I
mean it does show us something about the system. With
this whole difference between the popular vote and the electoral college,
(29:51):
does it ever make you wonder if if the system
needs to be rethought in the electoral college perhaps gotten
gotten rid of well, I mean, that's an interesting point.
I mean, the historical antecedents of the electoral college is
that the founding fathers needed a compromise between the agrarian
interests and the federalists who were more more in the
(30:16):
city's and so the electoral college was the compromise that
we've had for two hundred and forty some years. Um.
It's a compromise that that's worked in the sense that
campaigning for president would be completely different. Uh. And what
would happen is that candidates would go to urban areas
(30:40):
and forget rural areas because they're just aren't enough votes.
So um, that would be that would be uh shift
and really an isolation of the country um as a whole.
I mean, I think that changing the electoral college, in
talk of that is something that comes about when Democrats
(31:03):
don't win a series of presidential elections they think they should.
My guess is, if Joe Biden is elected, all the
talk of the electoral college will will retreat to fashionable
cocktail parties on the west side of Manhattan and maybe
the East side. But but I mean, it's changing the
electoral college. Those are the rules under which we play
(31:24):
the game. So the equivalent of a football team that's
that gains a lot of yards but can't score, saying
forget it, don't worry about what's on the scoreboard. We're
not counting that anymore. The team that gains the most
yards is gonna win. So you can change the rules
they really want to, But changes that are done to
sort of uh preordained and outcome, which is what this
(31:49):
bout of wanting to change the electoral College is about
doing that to get to gain a specific political result.
It's bad, bad reason to change an institution that's been
around for two hundred forty years. On the other hand,
ben if of people in this country are living in
(32:09):
cities um and far outweigh the number of people in
rural areas, maybe an adjustment could be made. Well maybe
if that's the way the demographic patterns really go, then
I think that's possible. Look, I also think that that
part of the angst that's felt about the electoral college
(32:30):
has really nothing to do with politics. Who is a
product not a product of politics, but a product of
a forty year demographic trend in this country for people
to move into communities with people more like themselves. We
are living in much more homogeneous communities than we ever
did before, and so a lot of the polarization that
(32:55):
has a curve, which is really what you're talking about,
is the root problem with the electoral college has been
caused by these sort of inexorceible demographic uh trends. You know,
I'm not sure changing the electoral college deals with that
rude issue. Let's talk about your role specifically in two thousand.
(33:17):
How would you describe it? What? What were you there
to do? Uh? Well, I was the general counsel of
the Bush Cheney campaign, and um uh I had because
I had worked elections and for the political party committees,
done a lot of recounts on the congressional and state level,
(33:41):
and so when we got ourselves into recount, um, you know,
I had helped prepare a lot of the basic materials
that you always do four recounts, and then I went
down to to Florida to help run the operations. What
is your perspective on the impact that event had on
our election system. The most immediate impact was that in
(34:05):
two thousand three, Congress actually passed a massive infusion of
of money into the election systems. Almost all communities bought
new machines, new technology at that point, and so it really,
for a period of time upgraded the mechanics of voting
(34:28):
in the country. And the problem is is that those
machines don't have a huge long shelf life, and most
jurisdictions in the country now are are running running pretty
long in the tooth on the equipment that they're using.
Not only that been but they can be hacked, and
(34:48):
they can't be often well, I don't know. I did
a documentary called I Voted, and it showed how easy
it was to hack some of those systems. Some University
of Michigan students did it in a couple of days. Furthermore,
there's no way to verify and double check some of
the results. So electronic voting is kind of problematic, don't
(35:11):
you think, Well, I have a pride. Do have a
problem with the touch screen machines in which there's no
paper trail? Yeah, I certainly agree with that. I think
it's a real mistake, and and we're in a we're
in a bad way with our voting systems. I mean, uh,
it's really tough to get communities who have to build
schools and roads and feed people to appropriate money for
(35:36):
for elections equipment that's used every other year, maybe twice.
It's just it's just not a top priority of the
state and local governments that actually do the funding for
for machines. So that's that's a problematic issue. And plus
(35:56):
the the most of the technology was put in place
before there are iPads, so there are generations of improvements
that could take place that really are not a top
priority in state and local government funding. We started the
conversation Ben, You're saying that it's that we're protected against
(36:18):
voter fraud. It happens very rarely. The Republican battle cry
is fraud. The Democratic battle cry is suppression. So where
do where do we stand in this kind of you know,
yin yang world of of one side focusing on one
(36:38):
thing and the other side focusing on another. Well, I
think it's I think it's not ideal. I think it's
a function or a symptom of of the polarization that's
part of the electorate and part of part of society,
and it is those are messages to the base voters
(37:01):
and not to the people in the middle who are
not fierce partisans. So that's not a way that you're
going to expand the electorate at all. How do you
restore faith in democracy? In your view? That is a
that is a complicated question in this day and age.
I mean, I suppose it ultimately goes to the quality
(37:25):
of our leaders on a national level, and I think
it also goes to the way we act in our
local communities. In other words, the way I think you
achieve the goal of restoring faith in the system is
to be able to change the terms of the debate
(37:46):
away from really polarized rhetoric and actions. And I I think, um,
although this I would be curious about other views on this,
but I think that that is more are likely to
occur on a local level, where it strikes me that uh,
(38:06):
people working with their neighbors are more more likely to
come up with solutions to problems and folcus on the
national level who are retreating to their sort of polarized bunkers.
And finally, do you have faith in in our election process?
Do you feel like it will withstand any potential challenges
(38:31):
from the president to others if the election doesn't go
their way. Well, I mean, I ultimately do. I think
it can be a difficult period uh post election if
it's closed, to be sure, But I do take faith
in having known so many of the officials on a
(38:53):
local level and a state level who actually are the
election system in this country. And UH, while when you
have ten thousand five jurisdictions in a million volunteers, there
will be mistakes, but I certainly do have faith in
their good intents to to get this done in in
(39:15):
a really professional, in good way. And I suppose it's
also important to remember every state's law does have proceedings
to allow for recounts and contests, especially when the results
are closed, and every candidate, whether you like him or not,
(39:37):
has the right or like her or not. Because I
was going to get to that, remember that Hillary Clinton's
campaign UH intervened in Jill Stein's recounts in three states Pennsylvania, Michigan,
and Wisconsin last year at the end of November, so
that contesting election is permitted by state law is one
(40:04):
of those things candidates are allowed to do. Hillary Clinton
did it. Stacy Abrams has not yet conceded the Georgia
governor's race. Never conceded, so that when impliciting your question
is that Donald Trump won't concede. That's been done before
two and uh, you know, the system moves on. You know.
(40:31):
After talking with Ben, I was inspired to rewatch recount,
which I'm actually in for a nano second, and I
have to say, given the times we're in, it was
pretty weird. There was actually one moment that stood out
that I had to share. Johnny Apple says that we
have a week to resolve this before the American people
will lose that patient. In this scene, al Gore's team
(40:52):
is debating how to conduct the recount, whether they should
go into democratic friendly counties and Hank count the paper ballots,
and Warren Christopher, who was the Democratic face of the
recount and a former Secretary of State played in the
movie by John Hurt, says they need to be careful
about how they proceed because the world is watching. We
(41:15):
are theoretically it's last great democracy. We cannot resolve this
in a way that is worthy of the office we seek.
What kind of hope do we give other countries wish
to share our values. We all know how that turned out,
but an important reminder come Tuesday. Okay, everyone, My final plea,
(41:38):
do make a plan. Whether you're dropping your mail in
ballot off at an official location, make sure it's not
past the deadline in your state to actually put it
in the mail, voting early in person, or heading to
the polls on November three. Bring a sandwich or the
snack of your choice, Listen to a podcast, and if
(41:59):
you have any lingering questions, go to vote dot org
for voting details specific to your state. For election coverage
and interesting and fund non political items. To sign up
for my morning newsletter wake up Call by going to
Katie Currek dot com. Oh and one last thing, some
advice to calm those election night nerves from our friend
(42:21):
Jesse Littlewood at Common Cause. It's important to remember that
election night is not results night. It's when we count
every vote that we decide the results of the election.
We would all like to know the results of the
election as soon as possible, and we should strive to
do that, but it's more important to be accurate than
it is to be fast. Okay, listeners, good luck out there,
(42:43):
I'll see you next week. On the other side, Turnout
is a production of I Heart Media and Katie Curric Media.
The executive producers are Katie Curic and Courtney Lick. Supervising
producers Lauren Hansen, Associate producers Derek Clements, Eliza Costas and
(43:06):
Emily Pento. Editing by Derreck Clements and Lauren Hansen, Mixing
by Derrick Clements. Our researcher is Gabriel Loser and special
thanks to my right hand woman Adriana Fasio. You can
follow me in all my election coverage at Katie Currek. Meanwhile, yes,
I'm Katie Currek. Thanks so much for listening everyone. We'll
(43:28):
see you next time.
We've always said that this series is about so much
more than just this election. As we've shown in our
first four episodes, the voting issues of our past and
how our country responds to them, paid the way forward
shaping future elections, including the history making moment we're living
in today. But now here we are just days away
(00:26):
from the presidential election, and I don't know about you,
but I have severe asset indigestion. So before getting into
our main interview today, I wanted to dive into some
of this week's big election stories. So the good news,
particularly for a show called Turnout, is that people are
turning out to vote in droves. By this recording, Americans
(00:50):
have cast over seventy one million early ballots, which is
more than half of all ballots cast and the two
thousand and sixteen election. People are mailing them in voting early,
making a plan for election day. It's so inspiring. I,
for one, called a lot of my friends to make
sure they were getting their asses to the polls. I'm
(01:12):
calling to see if you voted, or you have a
voting plan. Catherine yet calling to see if you voted
already submitted by a mail in ballot yesterday. Good but
(01:33):
the rules about how and when those votes will be
counted are the subject of a political tug of war
in some key states, states like Wisconsin, where the Supreme
Court had to step in with the decision on October
in another major blow to Democrats, Wisconsin can't count mailed
in ballots received after election day if it's not close.
(01:55):
In Wisconsin, it doesn't matter. If it comes down like
it did last time to tens of thousands of votes.
This could very easily make up the difference between who
ends up winning this election. The Wisconsin ruling is just
the latest in a flurry of election year decisions that,
rather than grant leeway because of the pandemic is Democrats argue,
have mostly sided with Republicans, keeping voting restrictions in place.
(02:21):
Texas Supreme Court just issued a ruling essentially shutting the
door on allowing all Texans to vote by mail during
the coronavirus pandemic, and the US Supreme Court blocked a
lower court from allowing curbside voting in Alabama. Another change
in the witness signature debate for South Carolina absentee ballots.
There's been so much back and forth. Finally, the Supreme
(02:41):
Court ruled that those signatures are required, and there are
more cases like these that could be affected by Judge
Amy Coney Barrett's swift descent to the highest court in
the land. This was a rigorous confirmation process, and I
thank all of you, especially Later McConnell and Chairman Graham,
(03:02):
for helping me to navigate it. It's a privilege to
be asked to serve my country in this office, and
I stand here tonight truly honored and humbled. While it's
true that this political tug of war has always happened
as each party vised for power every election, this year
(03:22):
is different. Mail in voting has surged this year as
Americans seek to avoid crowds at polling places, even as
Trump repeatedly claimed without evidence that it leads to voter fraud.
Because the President of the United States has taken fears
of voter fraud to a new level, a level that
questions the integrity of the entire election process. This is
(03:46):
going to be a fraud like you've never seen. Thousands
of votes are gathered and they come in and they
dumped in a location, and then all of a sudden,
you lose elections. If you think you're gonna win. You know,
so many years I've been watching elections and they say
the projected winner the winner of the election. I don't
want to see that take place in a week after
November third, or a month or frankly, with litigation and
(04:09):
everything else that can happen years, years, or you never
even know who won the election. I'm Katie Kuric, and
this is turnout. Can you or the White House staff,
where your camp anner by any evidence to back up
your claim the mail in voting his wife with fraud
like the example you gave a people working in rooms
filling out a false ballance And where's the evidence? I
(04:33):
think there's a lot of evidence, but will provide you
with some, okay, and as evidence as being compiled. Just
today on the podcast, an interview with an unlikely critic
of President Trump. The president's rhetoric, unproven rhetoric, the fact
that there is not sufficient evidence to show systematic fraud.
Did flip the switch, because that's where your responsibility comes in.
(04:58):
Benjamin Ginsburg is a Republican election lawyer who just retired
in August after thirty eight years and the GOP trenches.
Now he's spending his time writing op eds, and one
that got my attention back in September was a surprisingly
blunt rebuke of the president's baseless claims that the electoral
(05:19):
system is rigged. The sanctity of elections and making sure
they're done properly should be of of deep concern to everyone.
It really is the foundation of the democracy. And for
the forty years that I'd been working in Republican politics,
I was either inter precinct or part of a sort
(05:43):
of a roving lawyer team in a state for running
a nationwide program where we were talking to people in
polling places to see what the problems were. Republicans being
probably back since the days of Tammany Hall and the
big city machine means have been suspicious of fraudulent elections,
(06:04):
in vote rigging, so we've always looked for it. And
every state law has provisions for poll watchers or election observers,
and both parties should take full advantage of that, because
it's very important to have your people in a polling
place to look for problems, and so we've we've done that. Now.
(06:26):
There were sort of sporadic instances of fraud that came
to light, but never nothing that would justify a president
of the United States. Really, any candidate saying our elections
are fraudulent and they're rigged, and the only way I
can lose is if they cheat because they're simply is
(06:46):
not evidence to support that, and so to say otherwise
is completely destructive. So I think that this has brought
us into new and in dangerous territory. And the fact
that I had been a part of those programs for
so many years meant that I thought I had a
perspective on it. And what concerns you the most about
(07:09):
the rhetoric we're hearing undermining our electoral process from the
President of the United States himself. Well, you see it
reflected in the polls this cycle, where a dangerously and
shocking the high number of people say they're not sure
that the election is going to be valid and the
(07:30):
results accurate. And that's really a product of presidential rhetoric
and certainly not a product of any real evidence. Well,
let me ask you this, to play devil's advocate. We've
never had an election quite like this, obviously been in
the midst of a of a pandemic, with really unprecedented
(07:55):
number of mail in ballots. And I'm curious, is if
you think that that might provide fertile ground for the
kind of election fraud that some people in the specifically
in the Republican Party or warning us up. Well, first
(08:16):
of all, I think there are two sides to the coin,
and we should we should talk about that. So there
is a huge difference between a rhetorical fuseillade that elections
are fraudulent or rigged and actually being able to show
that in a way that would taint the results of
an election. And rather than than talking at a rally
(08:41):
or uh making threats in a tweet, you will really
have to go precinct by precinct and find specific instances
of fraud. They can find specific instances of fraud, it
should be rooted out and uh and corrected. But to
be able to actually throw the results of the election
(09:04):
in doubt, there will have to be ballots that are
called into questions. Now, I don't believe that there will
be a specific number of individual ballots that can be
called into question, and mass challenges have always been frowned
upon in as a matter of law and in legal proceedings.
(09:27):
So I think that feelings have been reved up to
a much higher degree in this election but I think
the results in the casting and counting of ballots themselves
will will be done in a way that there will
be verifiable results of the election. How can you assure
(09:49):
listeners of that that the systems are in fact in
place that will prevent and penalize any kind of voter fraud,
even if it is in fact very sporadic. Well, I
think that's I think it's true on a number of levels.
First of all is that you can go back and
look at instances of fraud that have been uncovered and prosecuted. Um.
(10:14):
Rarely is it enough to overturn the results of an election,
but sometimes. There was a congressional race in North Carolina
in two thousand and eighteen where there were illegalities found,
so a new election was held. There have been elections
in Paterson, New Jersey, UH in this past year where
there was found to be systemic fraud and that was corrected. Um.
(10:40):
But at the end of the day, I think people
can take a degree of certitude knowing that their ballots
are going to be counted in their community by their neighbors.
The US system has over ten thousand five jurisdictions with
with some degree of authority for the asting and counting
(11:00):
of ballots. In a normal year, over a million people
will volunteer to be poll watchers. They are all people
from your communities. And um I was co chair of
a presidential commission, bipartisan commission back in two thousand, thirteen
and fourteen, where we got to spend an extraordinary amount
of time meeting the actual people from the communities on
(11:25):
the state, county, uh and local levels who are responsible
for conducting elections. And I take a great amount of
solitude in in knowing how good those people are and
how much they do care. Having said that, what was
your reaction, Ben, when you started hearing Donald Trump, President
(11:46):
Donald Trump and other high ranking Republicans start laying the
groundwork for an all out assault on our democratic process. Well,
I'm not or that they laid the groundwork for an
all out assault. I think they used irresponsible and regrettable rhetoric.
(12:09):
But again, the groundwork for an assault would require challenging
on a local level in a very granular fashion. And
the battleground states, with the exception of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan,
have all begun to process their absentee ballots already. The
(12:30):
mail in votes that we've been reading are coming in
in such heavy quantity. Uh, And there have not been
those wide scale challenges, so at least so far, that's
been more rhetoric than reality. Hold that thought. Will be
right back after this short break. Let's return to my
(13:02):
interview with Republican election lawyer Ben Ginsburg. Let's talk about
these legal battles. The r n C and the Trump
reelection campaign, as you know, have doubled their legal budget
to twenty million dollars. I think you called it a
torrent of voting litigation already under way. What up with that? Ben? Well,
(13:27):
So it's an interesting it's an interesting phenomenon, and I
think you need to take a step back to appreciate it.
I in two thousand and ten, Republicans did very well
in the Obama mid terms and took control of the
number of state legislators and one a number of governorships,
(13:47):
and then increased that in in two thousand and twelve
on the state and local level. That gave Republicans the
ability to pass legislation that they felt gave them an
advantage in the electoral context. And so they did pass
any number of laws. Uh. The the Clinton forces and
(14:11):
really much more of the Biden forces decided that they
would go to court to try and turned back those
pieces of legislation that Republicans passed. Now, before we start
clicking our tongues at the bad Republicans for doing that,
recognized that when Democrats won control of the Nevada legislature
(14:34):
and governorship and the New Jersey legislature and governorship, they
have now since two thousand and eighteen, passed the Democratic
version of legislation that helps them in elections. So it's
something that both parties do. The RNC sued the Democrats
after they passed that legislation. The Republicans have been more
(14:57):
successful in this past decade in winning legislatures, and so
they have passed any number of laws that the Democrats
don't like, and the Democrats have gone to court, both
federal and state to try and redress it. Now that
the shoe is a little bit on the other foot,
after the two thousand and eighteen elections, Democrats have passed
their bills and Republicans have gone to court. So the
(15:22):
weight of the legislation is really because Republicans did better
in elections earlier in the decade. Well, this seems pretty
left up to me, Ben, I mean, why aren't these
election laws so malleable depending on who's in power? Can't they?
I mean, I guess that's that's our system of government.
But it seems a little screwed up to me. Well,
(15:44):
I you know, I think that they are policy choices
that get made in legislation. It happens in laws involving elections.
It certainly happens in laws involving taxes or the environment
or any other issue that you want to choose. There
are differences between the power the parties, and when one
(16:07):
party gets in power, they have a tendency to want
to pass their agenda. I get that the voting should
be sacristan saying, don't you think, Well, I think that
there are there are disagreements in policy over elections. Republicans
tend to fear fraud and Democrats tend to fear suppression.
(16:28):
And in one of the other underlying phenomenons that's grown
in the country over the last thirty years is polarization,
so that there are very few undecided voters at this
point in an election. That means that each party's go
to their base to try and energize their basis to
(16:49):
come out, and so the rhetoric and the foundational work
that gets done reflects that, And that is what I
think you're saying is bad. And you know that, Um,
that's a much bigger phenomenon than just elections and voting.
Do you believe that concern about voter fraud can inevitably
(17:11):
lead to voter suppression? Well, I think that they are
in some ways two sides of the same coin. And
I think that not all the laws that are accused
of being suppression are suppression. And as I've written, I
think many of the charges about fraud or wrong. But
(17:31):
I think unfortunately the fraud versus suppression narrative has creeped
into the get out the vote plans of both parties,
and as you try and energize your base with red
meat rhetoric, which is what we do these days, on
both sides, Republicans are gonna yell fraud, Democrats are gonna
(17:54):
yell suppression. That probably does energize their base. But what
I think you're rightly pointing to is what about people
in the middle of the spectrum who are not hard partisans,
who really kind of went away the candidates and the
issues and vote one way or the other. They hear
the loud decibels about fraud and suppression and think, wow,
(18:16):
that's a hassle for me to go to the polls.
So I'm not going to go to the polls. Can
you give me an example of a Republican law, state
law passed by a Republican controlled legislature regarding voting and
one that might have been passed by a Democratic legislature.
I well, I mean, let's let's take a look at
(18:41):
at the date in which absentee ballots need to be
received by a state. So the at least the cases
that are going up to the Supreme Court are ones
where Republicans voted to have all absentee ballots received in
the polling place on election day. The current Democrats have
(19:02):
been convinced that, uh, it is better really for them
to get more votes in to be able to extend
the deadlines on the receipt of absentee ballots. So any
ballot postmarked by election day can be received three days,
six days, twelve days after an election. So a Republican
(19:24):
legislature would pass election day receipt and a Democratic legislature
has passed some days afterwards. If there is so little fraud,
why is the Republican Party passing all these laws preventing
fraud if if experience tells us that there is very
(19:49):
little fraud. So the the credibility of our elections also
depends on their appearance. In other words, can voters take
confidence that's that it's a system with some standards so
that cheating and fraud don't go on. In other words,
the appearance of impropriety is recognized, for example, in campaign
(20:14):
finance laws, which I'm sure you love to justify limitations
on the size of contributions. That's there hasn't been a
finding of impropriety, it's an appearance of impropriety. The same
holds true in the election contest that you do need
to put some standards on it, whether it's showing voter
(20:36):
identification when you go into the polls or a signature
match on an absentee ballot, to give voters after the
election some elements of proof that in fact, all the
votes are legitimate. You outright asked Republicans to quote take
a hard look before advocating laws that actually do limit
(20:59):
the franchise of otherwise qualified voters. Yeah, I think that's
important for Republicans to do. I think that's not always
enough of the equation in in all these states, I
think it is important to to make it easy for
people to vote. To give you an example, Republicans have
(21:22):
all of a sudden gone negative on drop boxes, where
voters can take their ballots and drop them in a box,
and that's the way it gets uh. They get processed encountered,
so they don't have to stand in lines either in
early voting. They don't have to trust the mails by
by mailing them through the postal service the drop box.
(21:44):
Republicans for some reason have decided the drop boxes are
a bad idea that to me is a barrier two voters.
That that makes little or no sense. And I don't
think it's right that the Republican Party in a number
of states they in that position. When we come back,
(22:04):
being Ginsburg throws water on the president's byery claims and
the Democrats worst post election fears. Why do you think
(22:24):
President Trump is saying fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud whenever
he gets a chance. No, I don't know. I'm a
humble lawyer, not a psychiatrist, so I'm not sure I
really know the answer. To that question. Come on, Ben,
you know the answer? Well, I know, why tell me
the answer? I think because he wants to be able
to delegitimize the election. Play that out for me, Katie,
(22:50):
What would play that out for me? How does that happen?
So I don't know. I mean I think he said
I'm not sure. Here wait a second, but let's say
what if he says, Ben, let's just let's just play
this out, like you said, what if he says that
there's voter fraud it's everywhere, and some of these Republican legislatures,
(23:13):
you know, agree with him, or people who he has
in his pocket agree with him, and then he can
hold the entire country hostage by saying this isn't legitimate.
I don't know that it's honestly, it's honestly not the
way it works. That's why I said before that there's
(23:34):
a massive difference between talking about fraud and trying to
de legitimize an election and having the proof of that
in a state election process. And that that's why I
think the the notion that that he's somehow going to
(23:56):
disrupt the whole country is a little bit overblown. Is
like you, no one can exactly say the steps that
it would take to get from O G. Everything's fraudulent
to actually stopping the certification of a vote and the
naming of a slate of electors in in any state.
(24:18):
So it's a case of all talk. But if you
did have to hypothesize, ben, how someone might try to
go about delegitimizing uh, the election results, How might one
do that if one was so inclined, Well, I think
I think the hypothetical that I did discussing one of
(24:42):
those Washington Post top eds was that the campaign, the
Trump campaign would quite cynically engage in mass challenges of
voters as they went into polling places on grounds of
registration and then in the accounting of let's on the
(25:02):
validity of absentees as they came in. But it would
have to be massive blunderbus challenges. So, if the polls
are to be believed, um in the key battleground states,
that are not enough challenges. Now, if the results are
considerably closer, right, and this does hinge on the results
(25:26):
in in any of the battleground states being really close,
then it might be possible to to challenge enough ballots
to hold up a certificate of election, so that so
that the electoral college would would get a little bit murky. Well,
what would happen if it's close enough that you could
(25:48):
challenge the results in these key battleground states, Um, you know,
take me through that. Then what would happens? Well, I
mean it depends on the state. So, uh, you know,
there there are so many there's so many variables and
different pieces that would have to fall into place, uh,
(26:08):
that you would be tempted to say it's impossible, except
Florida happened in two thousands, so not impossible, but it's
really highly unlikely. Uh. What what would have to happen
is that I guess the electoral college nobody would have
two seventy votes when all the states that could tabulate
(26:30):
their ballots did, and there would be one, two or
three states that were within the margins of closeness set
by state law, which is either point two percent or
point five of of the difference between the two candidates,
and so there would be a recount or a contest.
(26:53):
And you know, when they're that close, there are always
ballots that that can be disputed. But that's also part
of the legitimate process. If an election is closed to
go through a recounter a contest. Do you think we
might get to the point where the Supreme Court decides
who the next President of the United States is this
(27:13):
go around? Well, I mean, I think it's I think
it's really really unlikely, and I think the greatest chances
that will have a pretty clear indication of a winner,
if not election night, within a couple of days of that,
I think given the all the absentees that have been found,
it may take a week or two longer. I think, Uh,
(27:39):
you know, the election has been so close and contested
that it's been thrown in doubt three times out of
the fifty seven that we've had. So I'm gonna take
a wild guess that there's a five point two chance
of it being that, and so in that scenario, it
might end up going to the Supreme Court. But that
(28:02):
hasn't happened often in our history, and it's a mistake
to bet against history. Let's talk about two thousand, because
you were imminently involved in the recount in Florida. Bob
Balibon played you in the movie Recount. Did you like
that casting, by the way, Ben, Yeah, I mean, I
(28:22):
don't know. Somebody must have been somebody must have thought
I was short and bald? Are we gonna win? Mr? Ginsburgh?
By tomorrow morning, the stains of Bill Clinton will be
washed away, an honor and dignity will finally be restored
to the White House. Let me just point out, Let
(28:44):
me just point out about the casting that I thought
Bob Balaban was terrific, But Michael Hooley, who was by
opposite on the Democratic side, is both shorter and balder
than I am. And he was played by Dennis O'Leary
as six ft two, uh each guy with a full
head of hair. So I'm just going to throw that
out as a casting example of the film. Duly noted,
(29:09):
duly noted? But how insane was it for you? It
made by the way it made me want to rewatch
recount tonight because I was covering that every day when
I was at the Today Show. I mean, was that
completely insane? Yes, it certainly was. Just remember when you
rewatch it that we won the recount and they won
(29:30):
the movie. Well, I guess it depends on who you were.
Who are you rooting for for president? Right? Well, I'm
just saying that's a statement effect, but you know, I
mean it does show us something about the system. With
this whole difference between the popular vote and the electoral college,
(29:51):
does it ever make you wonder if if the system
needs to be rethought in the electoral college perhaps gotten
gotten rid of well, I mean, that's an interesting point.
I mean, the historical antecedents of the electoral college is
that the founding fathers needed a compromise between the agrarian
interests and the federalists who were more more in the
(30:16):
city's and so the electoral college was the compromise that
we've had for two hundred and forty some years. Um.
It's a compromise that that's worked in the sense that
campaigning for president would be completely different. Uh. And what
would happen is that candidates would go to urban areas
(30:40):
and forget rural areas because they're just aren't enough votes.
So um, that would be that would be uh shift
and really an isolation of the country um as a whole.
I mean, I think that changing the electoral college, in
talk of that is something that comes about when Democrats
(31:03):
don't win a series of presidential elections they think they should.
My guess is, if Joe Biden is elected, all the
talk of the electoral college will will retreat to fashionable
cocktail parties on the west side of Manhattan and maybe
the East side. But but I mean, it's changing the
electoral college. Those are the rules under which we play
(31:24):
the game. So the equivalent of a football team that's
that gains a lot of yards but can't score, saying
forget it, don't worry about what's on the scoreboard. We're
not counting that anymore. The team that gains the most
yards is gonna win. So you can change the rules
they really want to, But changes that are done to
sort of uh preordained and outcome, which is what this
(31:49):
bout of wanting to change the electoral College is about
doing that to get to gain a specific political result.
It's bad, bad reason to change an institution that's been
around for two hundred forty years. On the other hand,
ben if of people in this country are living in
(32:09):
cities um and far outweigh the number of people in
rural areas, maybe an adjustment could be made. Well maybe
if that's the way the demographic patterns really go, then
I think that's possible. Look, I also think that that
part of the angst that's felt about the electoral college
(32:30):
has really nothing to do with politics. Who is a
product not a product of politics, but a product of
a forty year demographic trend in this country for people
to move into communities with people more like themselves. We
are living in much more homogeneous communities than we ever
did before, and so a lot of the polarization that
(32:55):
has a curve, which is really what you're talking about,
is the root problem with the electoral college has been
caused by these sort of inexorceible demographic uh trends. You know,
I'm not sure changing the electoral college deals with that
rude issue. Let's talk about your role specifically in two thousand.
(33:17):
How would you describe it? What? What were you there
to do? Uh? Well, I was the general counsel of
the Bush Cheney campaign, and um uh I had because
I had worked elections and for the political party committees,
done a lot of recounts on the congressional and state level,
(33:41):
and so when we got ourselves into recount, um, you know,
I had helped prepare a lot of the basic materials
that you always do four recounts, and then I went
down to to Florida to help run the operations. What
is your perspective on the impact that event had on
our election system. The most immediate impact was that in
(34:05):
two thousand three, Congress actually passed a massive infusion of
of money into the election systems. Almost all communities bought
new machines, new technology at that point, and so it really,
for a period of time upgraded the mechanics of voting
(34:28):
in the country. And the problem is is that those
machines don't have a huge long shelf life, and most
jurisdictions in the country now are are running running pretty
long in the tooth on the equipment that they're using.
Not only that been but they can be hacked, and
(34:48):
they can't be often well, I don't know. I did
a documentary called I Voted, and it showed how easy
it was to hack some of those systems. Some University
of Michigan students did it in a couple of days. Furthermore,
there's no way to verify and double check some of
the results. So electronic voting is kind of problematic, don't
(35:11):
you think, Well, I have a pride. Do have a
problem with the touch screen machines in which there's no
paper trail? Yeah, I certainly agree with that. I think
it's a real mistake, and and we're in a we're
in a bad way with our voting systems. I mean, uh,
it's really tough to get communities who have to build
schools and roads and feed people to appropriate money for
(35:36):
for elections equipment that's used every other year, maybe twice.
It's just it's just not a top priority of the
state and local governments that actually do the funding for
for machines. So that's that's a problematic issue. And plus
(35:56):
the the most of the technology was put in place
before there are iPads, so there are generations of improvements
that could take place that really are not a top
priority in state and local government funding. We started the
conversation Ben, You're saying that it's that we're protected against
(36:18):
voter fraud. It happens very rarely. The Republican battle cry
is fraud. The Democratic battle cry is suppression. So where
do where do we stand in this kind of you know,
yin yang world of of one side focusing on one
(36:38):
thing and the other side focusing on another. Well, I
think it's I think it's not ideal. I think it's
a function or a symptom of of the polarization that's
part of the electorate and part of part of society,
and it is those are messages to the base voters
(37:01):
and not to the people in the middle who are
not fierce partisans. So that's not a way that you're
going to expand the electorate at all. How do you
restore faith in democracy? In your view? That is a
that is a complicated question in this day and age.
I mean, I suppose it ultimately goes to the quality
(37:25):
of our leaders on a national level, and I think
it also goes to the way we act in our
local communities. In other words, the way I think you
achieve the goal of restoring faith in the system is
to be able to change the terms of the debate
(37:46):
away from really polarized rhetoric and actions. And I I think, um,
although this I would be curious about other views on this,
but I think that that is more are likely to
occur on a local level, where it strikes me that uh,
(38:06):
people working with their neighbors are more more likely to
come up with solutions to problems and folcus on the
national level who are retreating to their sort of polarized bunkers.
And finally, do you have faith in in our election process?
Do you feel like it will withstand any potential challenges
(38:31):
from the president to others if the election doesn't go
their way. Well, I mean, I ultimately do. I think
it can be a difficult period uh post election if
it's closed, to be sure, But I do take faith
in having known so many of the officials on a
(38:53):
local level and a state level who actually are the
election system in this country. And UH, while when you
have ten thousand five jurisdictions in a million volunteers, there
will be mistakes, but I certainly do have faith in
their good intents to to get this done in in
(39:15):
a really professional, in good way. And I suppose it's
also important to remember every state's law does have proceedings
to allow for recounts and contests, especially when the results
are closed, and every candidate, whether you like him or not,
(39:37):
has the right or like her or not. Because I
was going to get to that, remember that Hillary Clinton's
campaign UH intervened in Jill Stein's recounts in three states Pennsylvania, Michigan,
and Wisconsin last year at the end of November, so
that contesting election is permitted by state law is one
(40:04):
of those things candidates are allowed to do. Hillary Clinton
did it. Stacy Abrams has not yet conceded the Georgia
governor's race. Never conceded, so that when impliciting your question
is that Donald Trump won't concede. That's been done before
two and uh, you know, the system moves on. You know.
(40:31):
After talking with Ben, I was inspired to rewatch recount,
which I'm actually in for a nano second, and I
have to say, given the times we're in, it was
pretty weird. There was actually one moment that stood out
that I had to share. Johnny Apple says that we
have a week to resolve this before the American people
will lose that patient. In this scene, al Gore's team
(40:52):
is debating how to conduct the recount, whether they should
go into democratic friendly counties and Hank count the paper ballots,
and Warren Christopher, who was the Democratic face of the
recount and a former Secretary of State played in the
movie by John Hurt, says they need to be careful
about how they proceed because the world is watching. We
(41:15):
are theoretically it's last great democracy. We cannot resolve this
in a way that is worthy of the office we seek.
What kind of hope do we give other countries wish
to share our values. We all know how that turned out,
but an important reminder come Tuesday. Okay, everyone, My final plea,
(41:38):
do make a plan. Whether you're dropping your mail in
ballot off at an official location, make sure it's not
past the deadline in your state to actually put it
in the mail, voting early in person, or heading to
the polls on November three. Bring a sandwich or the
snack of your choice, Listen to a podcast, and if
(41:59):
you have any lingering questions, go to vote dot org
for voting details specific to your state. For election coverage
and interesting and fund non political items. To sign up
for my morning newsletter wake up Call by going to
Katie Currek dot com. Oh and one last thing, some
advice to calm those election night nerves from our friend
(42:21):
Jesse Littlewood at Common Cause. It's important to remember that
election night is not results night. It's when we count
every vote that we decide the results of the election.
We would all like to know the results of the
election as soon as possible, and we should strive to
do that, but it's more important to be accurate than
it is to be fast. Okay, listeners, good luck out there,
(42:43):
I'll see you next week. On the other side, Turnout
is a production of I Heart Media and Katie Curric Media.
The executive producers are Katie Curic and Courtney Lick. Supervising
producers Lauren Hansen, Associate producers Derek Clements, Eliza Costas and
(43:06):
Emily Pento. Editing by Derreck Clements and Lauren Hansen, Mixing
by Derrick Clements. Our researcher is Gabriel Loser and special
thanks to my right hand woman Adriana Fasio. You can
follow me in all my election coverage at Katie Currek. Meanwhile, yes,
I'm Katie Currek. Thanks so much for listening everyone. We'll
(43:28):
see you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!