A Lot of People Who Don't Believe in Elections Are Running for Election

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:03 Clip: So, just a yes or no, you still do not have a plan? I have concepts of a plan. That is a damning non-answer. I'm not trying to make it about myself, Your Honor. I'm just trying to show his bias toward the defendant. Just don't make it yourself.

0:00:33 Clip: Something simple as a crack pipe, a used crack pipe. The rules were that you guys weren't going to fact check.

0:00:44 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 1,081. I'm your host, Thomas Smith. That over there is real life lawyer, Matt Cameron. How are you doing, Matt?

0:00:54 Matt: How many days is it now? Is it eight days? Nine days? Can I think about something else?

0:00:59 Thomas: I don't know.

0:01:00 Matt: Just feeling it. Yeah, I keep thinking it's going to be next week. And I've been thinking that for a while. I guess it is going to Be next week, though, as of next week?

0:01:06 Thomas: The only advantage of being so busy, I don't get to be alive or experience anything uh I blinked and it's we're already it's over for me it's like wow I can't believe it's out of the election like I thought it was 1997 still personally but men in black is in theaters and all having a great time yeah um I'm starting to feel that that anxiety a a little more, you know, it's getting a little real. It's also the recent polling has been not as fun to look at as maybe it had been.

0:01:19 Matt: Wow. I wish I'd experienced this year that way. What a year. 97. seven yeah try not to I I don'T really want to make this about me but this has a lot to do with what I'm going to be doing for the next four years and like what my career is going to bE and what i'M going to be dOING all day every day and how anxious my clients are going to BE and how my mental health is going TO BE like it's just these are things I've been thinking about but how about we think about it some more by talking about the election for an hour let's

0:01:39 Thomas: It is true. Sounds good. Yeah. This is an election special, right?

0:01:52 Matt: It yeah no I want to get beyond talk the horse race here and talk about some of the things that people need to know, name and shame some people, because we've got a lot of people running for office that really shouldn't be.

0:02:00 Thomas: I Right. Well, bracing yeah, myself for what I can't imagine is like super good news. But, important you to know because don't we take a break and then we'll get to it. Matt's election special, everybody.

0:02:10 Matt: I promise also good news and good answers as well. Not all bad.

0:02:13 Thomas: How are you doing that? How are you promising good news? What's your proprietary formula for promising good new regarding election stuff?

0:02:16 Matt: We'll find out. The bar is so low. It's so low. That's the problem.

0:02:21 Thomas: All right. Right, Matt, where do we begin?

0:02:27 Matt: Right. Well, let us talk about just the basics here. The fact that we now have an entire wing of the conservative party of the United States that is essentially running on conspiracy theories that is like completely okay with talking about how Donald Trump still won the election somehow, that all elections at this point are suspect, that January 6th was set up by the FBI. There are people running for office right now who say and believe those things, and I think we should know about them. So I wanted to start with election deniers because just kind of continuing the theme that we're talking about with fascism, it does require conspiracy theories. It does require that you start to accept that the truth is what the party tells you. That's a very important part of it all. And I think that we've seen a lot of that. So I think just as a matter of basic qualification, people who continue to deny the election absolutely should not be running. People who in any way participated in holding things up on January 6th, planning for January 6, doing anything to do with it should not Be in office. And people who are still questioning these things, even if they're not totally, even though they're just skeptics, I have real problems with that, too. So I just didn't really see anybody talking about these people in one place. So, I wanted to just kind of give some numbers, give some names.

0:03:24 Thomas: I'll start. Uh, I think most of us watched the VP debate and Walls asked Vance, you know, did Trump lose the election? And my favorite part is I'm focused on the future. And then he asks, did Kamala censor viewpoints in 2022 or whatever it was? It was like, I'm focusing on the feature.

0:03:30 Matt: Yeah right

0:03:41 Thomas: Here's a question about the past. Like what?

0:03:40 Matt: The past yep the past I want to talk about right which is actually

0:03:44 Thomas: Look, I'm focussed on the futre. Did this happen thing happen in the past? It's like, well, then you're both both asking things about the past and he asked first. So I think, you know, rules are you should respond. And then what's so funny is I listened to, um, the New York times, I guess, does an interview podcast now and actually listened to that.

0:03:58 Matt: I was going to ask you if you'd listen to that yeah

0:04:00 Thomas: Yeah. I got, I've been way behind. I've been too busy, but I did, I did actually want to listen to that because it's interesting to see how good Vance is at laundering himself for the, like he really, he is good at appearing normal in, Yeah, exactly. In the right circumstances. Um, not when he's ordering donuts but when you know like when he's talking and the funny thing was he tried to do the same gotcha but with an interviewer where she asked she asked him four times uh win the election and then he does that did kamala censor what it's like what that might have worked when you're talking to the running mate of kamala but like this is just an interview or what is what is the why would the interview have to ask why would the interviewer have to ask your question first before you that doesn't make any sense like he tried the same dodge it's

0:04:10 Matt: Very slippery yeah right it's so bad no she right but

0:04:44 Thomas: Like what okay

0:04:45 Matt: With lula garcia navarro who could really hold her on like that was a good interview it And that's a good point to start with Vance because this stuff is starting at the top, obviously, with Trump and Vance. Neither a great website called electiondeniers.org. It's run by the nonpartisan 501c4 States United Action. Worth a look. We'll link to it. And they've got some numbers here that I just wanted to run down so that people can think about this. There are right now 201 sitting legislators in seven states who are open election deniers. That's a lot of people. Includes Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Some pretty important states there. Half of the Pennsylvania Senate, 34% of the entire Arizona legislature are

0:04:48 Thomas: Pretty good oh

0:05:22 Matt: Election deniers. It's a lot of people. 19 states, an election denier currently holds at least one statewide office with election oversight power. That's my real concern, is you get people in there with that kind of thing. And there are 14 of them running for statewide office in 2024. I just wanted to run some of those numbers down because I found them that'd be pretty shocking. We still have 126 sitting members of Congress who voted to overturn the 2020 election results.

0:05:44 Thomas: You remember how january 6th happened and then they still did it like that was actually shocking I mean not not shocks me but obviously january six was shocking if you weren't shocked by january or something wrong with it like you should be shocked by that but then they can't come back after almost being murdered and they still do it they still were like okay so anyway uh motion to you know steal an election and they're like okay cool awesome you're still doing and it's weird it's good a reminder that like yeah they're still there they didn't go anywhere it

0:06:11 Matt: Yeah. That No, brings me to the next thing I want to talk about, which is January 6th deniers specifically, because there are two of them, two senators that are on the ballot this time, and they're both despicable. We're both very familiar with both of them. First, of course, being Josh Hawley. The less said the better about Josh Josh Hawley, but we can all remember his fist and his unique running style the of January 6th. HawLEY doesn't really have a chance of being beaten. So points ahead right now of his Democratic opponent. Yeah. But Ted Cruz is another thing. I think, you know what, I'm just going to name them right now just because I think they need to be named. Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, Tommy Tuberville, Roger Marshall of Kansas, John Kennedy of Louisiana, Cindy Hyde -Smith of Missouri all voted against certifying Arizona. The same group, of the same group but then also Cynthia Loomis and Rick Scott of Florida voted to overturn the results in Pennsylvania. I just think it's worth saying that out loud. Was leaked audio Marito Bartiromo of Fox with Cruz on the phone with her talking about how they're getting ready for Pence to reject the election results. Like he's ready to help. He's

0:06:32 Thomas: Sucks remind Jeez.

0:07:03 Matt: Totally in. Yeah. And against him right now, and he's neck and neck. It

0:07:08 Thomas: Know, this is Lucy with the football for me now the third time. But the third Time that it's felt like, all right, here's, there's a chance there's, There is a chance. And um, is there a chance, but this time there might be a chance

0:07:14 Matt: Maybe. Yes. Well, pretty great. Actually, I got a clip for you. Let's listen. He's really a schoolsman here.

0:07:28 Clip: I have to say, you can't be for the mob on January 6th, and for the officers. You can't. And it's not funny. Because you're a threat to democracy. I was on the House floor when we went through the votes. I remember when you objected to the results in Arizona. Y 'all at home might remember where you were on January six, what you were doing. I know where I was, and I know what he was. I remember they told us to get under our seats for these gas masks. I didn't know we had, because they had deployed tear gas in the rotunda. The officers locked all the doors. We bawled the doors the President walks through to deliver the State of the Union with furniture that we usually use to hold paper. I texted my wife, Allie, who was seven months pregnant with our son, Cameron, and the home of our son Jordan, who wasn't let to. Whatever happens, I love you. I took off my suit jacket, and I was prepared to defend the House floor from the mob. At the same time, after we'd gone around the country lying about the election, after he'd been the architect in the attempt to overthrow that election, When that mob came, Senator Cruz was hiding in a supply closet. And that's okay. I don't want him to get hurt by the mob. I really don't. This election

0:08:32 Clip: Is his accountability. You cannot just be patriotic when your side wins. If for the first time in 250 years, this project of ours, this shared American project, that we did not have a peaceful transfer of power, the folks responsible have to be held accountable. That's why Liz Cheney's endorsement as it got involved in this campaign is saying to Texans everywhere, do not put Ted Cruz back in a position of authority. Because he's done it once, he'll do it again.

0:08:32 Matt: So good. And he just kind of shakes his head and laughs. That's one of the most effective things I've ever seen in any debate. That was just fantastic. And I can see why Allred's doing so well.

0:09:05 Thomas: Yeah, I it's, I don't know though. I have no, I just don't Know. It's felt like any, here's the thing. Anytime you watch anything against Ted Cruz, you're like, wow, that was incredibly effective because it's Ted Cruz's face on the other side. I was like, holy shit. Did he make him look like that? But this This one feels, you said you weren't looking at the polls, but I think this one's pretty damn even.

0:09:09 Matt: I know. Yeah. Know I was. This is 47-48. Cruz is ahead by a point, maybe two right now at the most. So, you know, it could be done. And And we wish him the best here. So overall, though, and we actually know that, by the way, from Cruz's book. He actually put that in his own book, Justice Corrupted, about how he's adding a supply closet. Not something I would say, but yeah, the honesty. On Friday, I'm kind of obsessed with the FEC right now. And Ted Cruz has been doing his part to corrupt corrupt our election laws on top of everything else. You might remember this 2022 case in front of the Supreme Court, it was FEC v. Cruz, or Cruz campaign, in which they found it was like the most corrupt thing. Well, no, I can't say that. It was up there. It's one of their most corrupt election things. The candidates could pay back loans made to the campaign after the election using contributions made after election day. And there was a cap on that of $250,000, which that still seems too high. Talking about giving people money to repay personal loans they made to their campaigns after the campaign is, you know, even after they've lost or whatever, you're just talking about straight

0:10:15 Matt: Graft at that point, especially if they've won.

0:10:16 Thomas: That just means if do I get to have money that people gave me and use it just for me personally? Personally it's pretty much all that means yep

0:10:22 Matt: Basically. Yep. I'll just funnel it right through. And John Roberts said he didn't care that Cruz made the loan just to bring a test case that, you can't have these kinds of restrictions. It's just too much corporate free speech that we can't have. So want to remind everybody of that. And Ted Cruz brought that on purpose to test that rule. And I think it's more than once he's done these kinds of things. I don't think we need to remember how terrible Ted Cruz is. I just thought it was worth mentioning.

0:10:43 Matt: Well, as usual, the Senate turns on a few people that probably aren't really Democrats at all, but people have to rely on.

0:10:50 Thomas: Yeah we yeah, it's bad news, everybody. I Here is my headline to lead this off. A bunch of people who just really did not understand what was happening for the last six years are are really going to miss Joe Manchin. They just won't ever think about it because I guess some people just don't think critically. But Joe Manchen was always good to have in the Senate. It was, he's, don't get me wrong, he sucks. He was always better to have than not. And we're finally going to see it. And it was frustrating making that argument over and over and over. Sometimes it didn't bother. But, you know, it's a bunch of people saying, how dare someone call themselves a Democrat and be anti Roe v. Wade? And it's like, OK, well, how about this? Think of him as a Republican who votes with us like significant in times.

0:11:14 Matt: Nothing that's right right yeah

0:11:31 Thomas: And then would you say like, oh, he sucks. We got to replace him with a dyed in the wall, 100% Trumper. Like, why would that be good? Why is that a good thing? It was good that we had Manchin, even though he sucks personally, it was very good that he's resigning.

0:11:40 Matt: Well I'm with you yeah

0:11:46 Thomas: So we lose that seat. So that's gone. That goes from someone who voted for Justice Brown -Jackson, voted for a lot of court appointments, voted for things that were very important, didn't vote for a couple of things that were very important, obviously, and now we get, instead of those things that were very, very valuable, we get none of that. And so we're right away starting from a position of extreme disadvantage. And the map is really bad for us, as I'm sure most listeners have already heard. Of blue seats are up and a bunch bunch of red seats aren't, and it's, yeah, it's not looking good.

0:11:49 Matt: Good and to your point uh joe mansion will be replaced by jim justice almost certainly who is the uh do you know about jim justice the coal baron he's a west virginia actual coal barone he's

0:12:27 Thomas: YOU think you WOULD vote for Katonji Brown -Jackson if she would have come up? Do you think he would have? No, I think

0:12:30 Matt: Do not yeah I really don't he's not great um he's been a pretty hardcore MAGA guy but the real ways is to watch are in michigan ohio pennsylvania wisconsin um then you got arizona nevada texas and nebraska and montana are pretty much all up for grabs um yeah it's it's a lot of math there's a a lot back and forth here I there's no way I can make a prediction but

0:12:46 Thomas: You said at the beginning Matt we don'T need to DO the horse stuff we're not 538 or you and so um you either know, not look at polls or, by the way, do everything you can in whatever state you are to get people to vote, because it's not impossible. It is by no means inevitable. Like if we have a wave election, I think we could be great. Who knows? Maybe, Maybe maybe if you want some sort of optimism, you there are people who think that polls are undercounting young voters because they don't answer their phones, because why on earth would you answer your phone? Like, I don't I mean, I I don'T understand how there even are polls if they rely on answering a phone.

0:13:18 Matt: I know.

0:13:19 Thomas: I would never do that.

0:13:19 Matt: Who is talking to these people?

0:13:20 Thomas: Yeah. And so like in yes, they do control for these things. But in can only take you so far. Are. Like if you're really just not getting a sample that returns your calls, like really hard to accurately, uh, for that. Cause Um, you don't have that perfect information. So if there's, you want to cling on to hope it's possible. Um. I think there's a possibility that the polls are, are systematically wrong. I mean, it's impossible. I'm, I am I wouldn't bet on it, but could you be. And if that's the case, maybe we'll have a wave. But instead of talking about the very, not only horse race stuff, Matt, but not good horse stuff when it comes to the Senate.

0:13:50 Thomas: I know there's some more stuff that's OAS more that you wanted to talk about regarding this election.

0:13:50 Matt: That's true. For sure. Yeah and just kind of hitting on just reminds people of I want to talk about a few more election deniers before we talk about anything else. We got Kari Lake, of course, perennial character at this point from what I was reading, people are getting annoyed with her air in Arizona like the Republican Party in Arizona is kind of done with her.

0:14:09 Thomas: Well, she already lost once, right? Didn't she

0:14:11 Matt: Uh not if you ask her she only uh I've got a clip for you let's listen to her talk about that let's

0:14:11 Thomas: Lose last time? Yeah. According to reality, she уже lost once. People Oh, God, I can't wait. Did Kamala rig the... No.

0:14:26 Clip: We should not be surprised that she's still in denial about the 2022 election. Now I give you one minute, you have one minute. Will you finally tell the people of Arizona, did you win or lose that election? Can we talk about water really quickly? I need 30 seconds to respond. Please talk about Water. I need to also talk about Waters separately.

0:14:44 Clip: We're running out of time for 30 seconds. Let's talk about Weather. She's

0:14:40 Thomas: What? Water? Talk about water. Water. I mean, Arizona, water's an important topic, but that is a funny way to try to get out of that.

0:14:50 Matt: Talk about water my mouth is suddenly very dry for some reason I need water

0:14:57 Thomas: Yeah, because if I were handed a softball question of just trivia, trivia, like, hey, who won X election what year? I'd be like, oh, I know that. Let's solve that real quick. It's this person. Okay. Anyway, water in order to start this one. Yeah.

0:15:09 Matt: Only conceded the election like a few weeks ago uh mean that the 2022 election that's fortunately, Ruben Gallego, whose voice you heard there, bringing her to that challenge, he's plus four as of now. So that's a good one we can talk about. Yeah. Let's just talk about a few others. Got Gabe Evans in coloradohouse candidate who was at least denial curious we'll gave a no -ish when he was asked if the Trump election was stolen. He's refused to give a straight answer on that. He insists it's not a yes or no answer, but I don't understand that. It seems like it would be.

0:15:22 Thomas: That's really nice. Yeah, you Matt. It's just more and more obscure ways to answer. It is like epistemology class, you know. What is an election is what I would ask. Ask, it's like each person finds a more abstract way to, or what do you, is an election defined by who like has more votes or is it defined by who is in the hearts and minds? You know, it's okay, man. Just yeah.

0:15:59 Matt: What is winning really? Yeah.

0:16:01 Thomas: Yeah. Define winning.

0:16:01 Matt: When you think about it.

0:16:03 Thomas: It's just getting more. It'S like a sophomore philosophy class. And I liked sophomore philosophy class, but not when was, it was, you toward stealing an election. That's not as fun.

0:16:13 Matt: Well, in that case, his Democratic opponent is up a couple of points it's pulling close um then uh We've got Tom Barrett, House seat in Michigan. One of my favorites. He's been investigated by the Michigan AG for putting out a campaign ad with election day as November 5th instead of November 6. Out in a black community newspaper. Yep. Yep.

0:16:31 Thomas: Ah, these people.

0:16:32 Matt: Just, I mean, just not even trying. Like, that's just, is yeah. Leading by by a few. But, you know, again, he's an election denier, that's why he's on the list. Got Sam Brown in Nevada running for Senate against Jackie Rosen. They're 48-48 right now. It's a tight one. And spread the conspiracy theories that fuel January 6th. And when he was challenging Adam Laxalt in 2022, he criticized him for not challenging the election results. So I don't think he's changed that much. Bishop in the North Carolina Attorney General candidate was looking particularly at attorney generals and governors and other voting officials, Secretaries of State. Refused to certify election in 2020, and he's seven points short of Jeff Jackson. But at this point, 21% of voters are undecided in that one, so it's up.

0:16:57 Thomas: Good point. Wow. Wow.

0:17:07 Matt: Yeah, I know. They must both suck. I don't know.

0:17:08 Thomas: That's kind of crazy. Jeez.

0:17:12 Matt: Moreno, running for Senate in Ohio, has tried to change his messaging on January 6th. He actually, he's one of those that switched over from having condemned January 6 and election denial, and now he's kind of of embracing it. So that's not great. Got Scott Perry, another favorite in Pennsylvania. Candidate there. I mean, Scott Perry is a familiar name. If you're familiar with January 6th, sort of the background stuff, he's one of the people actually directly coordinated with Trump and Jeffrey Clark to overturn the election. A climate denier. He was one of those people that voted nay on condemning QAnon when that came up. Though, his Democratic opponent is a news anchor who's pretty charismatic, Janelle Stolson, and she's up plus nine. She's made a big jump. I think that Perry is not making a good impression from what I can tell. Got David Schweickert running for the House in Arizona. Relatively well -behaved, sort of like tries to be a classic conservative, but he didn't certify Pennsylvania's election results. He's been public about the idea that the FBI may have played a role on January 6th. Fortunately, that's a really close one. His is a former state rep and emergency room doctor, Amish Shah. Seems very appealing. Shah's up a bit, so that's one to watch. In Massachusetts, we're not immune, unfortunately, from election denial. That's one of those states that generally hasn't had one. But yeah no jeff deal is uh our manga guy he's the sort of the the manga faction took over the republican party in massachusetts which is really saying something because mass has always been one of those traditional new england you know mitt romney type places um we've always been comfortable with republican governors because you think voters actually see it as a balance here but we're kind of past those times now I think um being what they are I don't think we're going to get another one anytime soon but jeff diehl took over of the party. And he tried to run against Elizabeth Warren in 2022. That did not work out. It was pretty far behind. You know, she's still very popular. And Republicans are still not going to really have a chance on the statewide level this way. He's running for state Senate, and I'm sure he'll get in in that district. So, you Know, I just I'm tracking that just for my own, obviously.

0:18:49 Matt: But I just wanted to point out that, you associate a lot of these swing states a lot of these more red and conservative places but it's it's everywhere yeah

0:18:56 Thomas: Yeah, it's interesting. And sometimes in deep blue states, especially when you're talking about the house where you got gerrymandered districts or just, you know, non gerrymander districts that are drawn in a certain way so that, OK, this is a deep red one. Even though you're in a blue state, of counterintuitively, you have even harder right members because, OK, it's a safe red district and they're just running for the primary like yeah, not it'S as though like, since oh, California or Massachusetts, whatever it is, that'S a blue blue state, the Republicans there are like more moderate. It's like, no, that's not really how it works.

0:19:24 Matt: No and we've also got kind of a new map with uh the redistricting there has been a lot to gerrymandering unfortunately in the last round in 2024 um that's something else to look for do you know the origin of gerryandering actually I always like to make sure people know

0:19:35 Thomas: Well, the guy's name is Jerry. I remember that. Yeah, I'm just Jerry.

0:19:39 Matt: Gerry elbridge used to be a name you could have

0:19:41 Thomas: Yeah. It's not a bad one. I'm going to bring it back.

0:19:43 Matt: Was the governor of Massachusetts, actually, not to keep making about Massachusetts, but the Democratic -Republican Party back then, they redistricted whole that Senate seat around Boston to try to make sure they kept the power by consolidating the Federalist vote and maximizing their own votes. And the Boston Gazette wrote that it looked like a salamander, and then a cartoonist drew it as a dragon, sort of like a mythological creature. Himself, Jerry, actually said that it was disagreeable. He didn't like it, but he signed off on it as his party's idea. India, and forever after it's carried his name from 1812.

0:20:08 Thomas: Oh the Manders. I don't know why I didn't think of the Mander part of it. I was like, yeah, that is just the.

0:20:12 Matt: Isn't it cute? It's one of those cute election words, like filibuster. It's just one of Those things that it's fun to say. Yeah, there's obviously it's not fun to look at. And we need to have real reform on this. It'S one thing I wanted to talk about. Because we speaking, the gerrymandering has helped Republicans, as you would expect, everywhere it's being done. I was looking into the Freedom to Vote Act. I want to talk About this for a minute, just before we talk talk about any of the bad stuff, because this is a real thing. This could really help. Passed the House in 2022, and it couldn't be brought up in the Senate with a procedural failure. Excuse Amy I just want to talk about all the good stuff in here. I did not know how great this law was. By effect, it's estimated that about 3.8 million Americans more would vote if everything in there was instituted. That includes a million more Latinos, a million More youth, 600,000 black voters, 300 million people would just regain their voting rights because it would allow federal voting to commence again after you get out of federal prison rather than having to go through any other kind of process. It just would make the states recognize that. 4 million more people would be able to vote just by instituting no excuse to vote by mail. You don't have to explain yourself. You just have to, a lot of these are just very practical solutions for early voting, making sure that all states have have that for making sure that mail -in ballots can be carried out without any trouble.

0:21:22 Thomas: I this idea idea that you should need some excuse like what do we do who's this like we just want to yeah voting the way it works is the people of the country should want them to decide stuff and so oh you just need to know what they think it's not like a homework assignment where it's like well if you're gonna hand in a late test then it's just like no you just all that matters is like what they They wanted that's that's the information you're trying to get as as a country.

0:21:26 Matt: Just, I want to vote. That's my excuse. Your right. Like it's just that simple. You should just be able to do it. Favorite part of this the, act is the ban on partisan gerrymandering. It is like an actual step -by -step way to do it. And it means that a state would be barred by statute from using a plan if it was drawn with discriminatory intent or effect. And that's a big deal to actually just put that into law. And it would be broader than previous ones because the discriminatory effect would be enough. And they'd have to start over if they could show that. There's a rebuttable presumption that the violation be triggered. You can show that the two most recent presidential and two most recent Senate elections in the state show the party's candidate for president or Senate would have carried the disproportionate share of districts in two of the four elections. So just showing a pattern of gerrymandering of like the disproportion between the population and the way it's drawn um there's a of good stuff there that that kind of thing like real and I'm sure it'll be challenged it'll have to go through federal court of course but that's like a real actual practical solution that we can impose on the states you know there and there are certain things the states have control over and certain things the federal government needs to step in for I think uh another one is voting access something as simple as just making sure that The states can't have lines

0:22:45 Matt: That are longer than 30 minutes.

0:22:45 Thomas: Something as simple as a crack pipe. Yeah. No, sorry.

0:22:48 Matt: Yeah. And also no restriction on food and drinks in line. You shouldn't have to put that into federal law, but we know that you have to.

0:22:52 Thomas: Once again, stuff that if you had to explain to an alien would just be insane. Like the goal IS to learn what do the people want? Not can we starve them out of being able to cast their vote or make them so thirsty that they don't want to wait to, you know, make their voice. It's just insane. It reminds me of back in the day I used to play pickup basketball, actually kind of miss it, but would would always be one guy who would do the thing at the beginning of the game where he'd pretend to be on your team and go, Oh, I'm open. I'm up. And then it passes to him. And then it'd be like, he goes score. And it's like that the game we're playing isn't who can pretend they're on a team. The game we'RE playing is basketball. Like you should be wanting, like, you know what I mean? And at a certain point, if the way you have to win is by depriving people of water, like you're not doing doing elections you're just doing like else interrogations I don't know what you're doing but it's not elections yeah

0:23:45 Matt: You're not helping anybody vote. I mean, that's the idea. And all of these, obviously, these seats are all being brought Republicans. I don't have tell you that. But I didn't realize that early voting wasn't already a thing everywhere. It's only 40 states. I mean that's most states, obviously. But I would have thought that was something that all states had at this point. So that would require that they have at least a two -week early voting period. Automatic motor voter registration, which I do support, I think, across the board. That alone is estimated to create 600,000 new eligible black voters pretty much off the bat if you had that everywhere. Favorite, of course, statutory rules for super PACs. All the stuff we were talking about last time, like overruling Overrulingthe FCC, re -structuring it, and giving it clear sets of guidelines about super PACS, just like eliminating their ability. Because right now, as we talked about last week, the fact that they can twist a regulation to the point that they can find that going door -to -door and canvassing is not public communication somehow, right? That that's just too much. Alone all the stuff we're talking about last weak with communications and with coordination abilities. Stuff should all be absolutely spelled out, and super PACs should be limited as much as possible. I'm big on that right now after doing that reading. And the took republicans up on the election security thing and actually introduced real security standards that would actually protect you know for everybody including things to help control foreign interference in elections like actually putting some teeth into that um also protecting voting officials I mean it's really unfortunate we're

0:24:54 Matt: To the point where we have to do that yeah

0:24:55 Thomas: Kidding that's important for I mean obviously it's just important because it's important but also I a lot of like election workers have quit because of these threats and now who's replacing them you deniers. Yeah. It's, it's scary.

0:25:03 Matt: It's scary right I mean, it literally protects them with protection, enforcement funds, but it also makes it harder for them to be removed on partisan grounds, which is a real issue. Like we have to protect these positions, Secretary of State and local local election boards that set these things. That's all the right direction. I'd love to see this actually get through. I hope hope it does sometime.

0:25:21 Thomas: It's amazing just to tie the two things we've talked about together. If we went ahead and decided to have a wave election, which we could, we can just do, like, if you look at the numbers, the of people who just stay home, know, and I know it's a group action, collective action thing. It'S, you can't just snap your fingers, but like, not for nothing, the number of people that just stayed home, numbers are there. Like if the people who stayed home on either side, actually scarily enough, but so on the left, if a portion of those people just decided to vote because, for whatever reason, or they were able to vote or whatever it is, we could have a wave election. We could have that very bill you're talking about passed as long as we got rid of the filibuster, which, hey, a of Joe Manchin not being one of your blue senators, if you have a majority, one is more person who might get rid of the filibuster same goes for kirsten cinema oh hey oh I meant to say this as much as I am a little bit chastising people for not understanding the reality of the situation with joe uh mansion which doesn't apply to kirstin effing cinema she was worthless she did nothing but cause harm the

0:25:53 Matt: Thank

0:26:17 Thomas: Average replacement for her would have been way better uh the way to look at it is if a bolt of lightning had hit and struck down joe manchin we 2020 or whatever like that would have been incredibly bad for us it really would have with there's so much we wouldn't have gotten done we wouldn'T have Katonji brand injection it would have been bad if a bolt of lightning struck Kyrsten Sinema down it'd be better I mean that like we'd have better things like assuming I haven't looked up who appoints the senator blah blah all that crap but assuming we got a replacement blue senator it would have been way better so I'd less people think I'm just nagging about like moderate It's not about moderate Dems. It's about the reality of the electoral map. And Kyrsten Sinema sucked.

0:26:54 Matt: Was a very important distinction. Yeah, no thank you for making that distinction actually.

0:26:59 Thomas: Yeah, poor.

0:26:59 Matt: I was getting a little worried.

0:27:00 Thomas: I'm glad I remembered you. I meant to. Yeah God, she's the worst. First.

0:27:03 Matt: Yeah but that's absolutely and an absolute enigma. I'd

0:27:07 Thomas: Ruben Gallego the one replacing her, right? We heard from in the clip earlier, I think, right. Isn't that the, yeah.

0:27:10 Matt: Be. Yeah well let's hope so. Yeah

0:27:13 Thomas: Let's sorry. I didn't finish my thought. I meant to finish my thoughts, which is if we went ahead and did that wave election and we had enough people to kill the filibuster, even just by all you need is 50 plus one. If we, you know, if Kamala wins, then we could pass that bill that you're talking about. And I just by virtue of allowing people to actually vote, think I we'd have further wave elections like great thing is it's not cheating because it's letting people actually vote. It's undoing the cheating that's not currently allowing people To vote. And it would be a massive, massive to Democratic efforts. And we could we could just do that if you want. If everybody feels like it, we'll just do

0:27:13 Matt: That's the plan. Yeah for some reason though it's kind of unpopular with some people. I don't really understand it but yeah a lot of people that seem to think those cheats should be in place.

0:27:58 Thomas: It. Yeah. Episode has been brought to us by Quence, it is fall, the easily the best season, not really any competition for that, they should have tried harder on the other ones because now that it's finally no longer a billion degrees, it's time to change up that wardrobe. Quince has you covered. Quince offers affordable, high -quality essentials for any wardrobe. That includes seasonal must -haves like Mongolian cashmere sweaters from $60 and comfortable pants for any occasion. Quint's only works with factories that use safe, ethical, and responsible manufacturing practices along with premium fabrics and they partner with them directly, cutting out the cost of the middleman and passing the savings on to you. Means Quint items are priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands, so you can update your look without breaking the bank. For example, I just ordered these flow knit performance joggers. A good jogger. I checked. You don't have to be at jogging to get a performance jogger, which is a relief. Hoping to do almost no jogging with them, but I could if I wanted to. If I did, they'll be just like everything else I've gotten from Quince. It lasts, it's high quality, and it's a great price. Upgrade your wardrobe with pieces made to last with Quince Go to quince.com slash OA for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. That's Q -U -I -N -C -E dot com slash OA to get free shipping and 365 day returns. One more time, quince dot com slashoa.

0:29:27 Matt: Fifth Circuit case I want to talk about, speaking of limitations, Lamb v. Wetzel, this is just one to flag because it's one of those classic setups where the RNC was looking for the place where they knew that they could get the Fifth circuit to do their bidding, that they could do something that is a really dangerous precedent. And I just wanted to notice because it one of the things that I have not seen too much on, but they brought it here for a reason for this judge to look at. Now, the district case is a challenge to the idea that mail -in votes can still be counted when they're received after Election Day, which is a the DNC points out in their amicus brief, this goes back a century at least.

0:29:54 Matt: This is not something new. It's just you can do mail -on ballots. You can have them come in. You're casting the ballot on the day you send it, when you postmark it.

0:29:59 Thomas: Fine. Does the Constitution say we have to know who won the election at 12:01 a.m. the next day? No, it doesn't say that.

0:30:08 Matt: You might be surprised. You might

0:30:09 Thomas: I'm answering no.

0:30:10 Matt: Be suppressed. Yes, I agree. No, of course not. Is pretty clear stuff. And the district court judge could not have been more clear in his conclusion. He said, plaintiffs Essentially, both counts stand or fall on whether the Mississippi absentee ballot statute conflicts with federal law, in which case plaintiffs say their rights would be violated. Because the court finds no such conflict, it finds no violations. So summary judgment for defendants, because they found that the plaintiffs had no case. Because it's so clear that the state is allowed to set the time, place, and manner that can include things like casting a ballot and having it come in after Election Day. But this decision got in front of a conservative panel, which included James Ho. You've probably heard that name a lot as a Trump judge.

0:30:45 Matt: He clerked for Thomas. You got Andrew Oldham, who clerked For Alito. And they team up on this one. And they find that, you know, based on, I don't know, state regulations and vibes and a new definition of the word cast, in which it absolutely has to mean mean that you're doing it on that day. And it can't mean that, like, the act of casting the ballot into, I don't know, the mailbox is still casting it.

0:31:07 Thomas: People. God.

0:31:09 Matt: And I mean, even district court judge did such a good job of setting this up and trying to make sure it couldn't be appealed. He said, plaintiffs argue that no ballots are cast, this is from the district court decision, until they are in the custody of election officials. But their only authority for this proposition is a Montana state court decision from 1944. That's all they've anywhere in the country. They have one Montana state court decision that doesn't control on this federal question. And that, and I had to look to see what James Ho and Andrew Oldham would do with this, because if that's the only authority you're citing for the definition of cast, like, can't be enough. It just can't been. But it was. They,

0:31:41 Thomas: Me let me think about that as a normal person, which we do on the show. You're the lawyer. You can tell me why. Why? I'm an idiot. One situation, I put my vote, let's say, into a box and it's counted like probably the next day. It might be counted sooner, but it might be kind of the next thing might be count after that. I don't know. It takes a while sometimes. Another situation, I put my ballot in a box and then it's counted the next day or maybe like the day after that. But one counts and one doesn't. You know why? Slightly different box. And the founding fathers intended. They needed the thing you put your ballot in to be only one type of box, a literal ballot box versus the the mailbox something that also the government controls it's not you know it's like not like the dnc controls the mail what

0:32:26 Matt: I have to read this paragraph so you can hear the absurdity. The state's problem is that it thinks a ballot can be quote -unquote cast before it is received. What if a state changes its law to allow voters to mark their ballots and place them in a drawer? What if the state allowed a voter to mark a ballot and then post a picture on social media? I don't understand what these questions are.

0:32:40 Thomas: But that but that's not what it's doing yeah what what if

0:32:44 Matt: Then they say the hypotheticals are obviously absurd. Yes, yes they are. It should be equally obvious that a ballot is quote-unquote cast when the The state takes custody of it. So, no. It's equally obvious to our stupid hypotheticals that, again, this doesn't make any sense. This isn't even basic. I can't recognize this as a law, the way they're writing this.

0:32:48 Thomas: Well well done okay cast yeah this is very silly this is where we need some sort of tim waltz folksy like yeah and if my my had something should be my uncle I don't know was one of those ones or whatever. Like what are those hypotheticals have anything to do anything? That's that's nothing. Yeah.

0:33:15 Matt: Are just words. They're just putting words on paper. I mean, it's really, like, actually reading a Fifth Circuit decision will link to it, and everybody can enjoy it for themselves. But, you know, the clarity of the district court and the complete muddledness of these two just trying to get to where they want to go in redefining the word cast. That's what they do. That's how they come down on it.

0:33:32 Thomas: Unreal.

0:33:32 Matt: There was a temporary injunction in place, but they declined to grant the permanent injunction. And this was reviewing Mississippi law. There's no permanent injunction for the Fifth Circuit. This is only decision that really controls in Mississippi, interpreting Mississippi state stuff. But it's very concerning that you have a fairly complete decision from the Fifth circuit that outlines exactly how anybody could bring a challenge like this and that another court could certainly be influenced by. And I would expect a lot of challenges. I think we're going to see, unfortunately, there are going to be a lot lot of challenges to this election pretty quickly. Both sides are getting their lawyers ready. And I want to talk a little bit about that because, you know, what if we have a situation where state officials refuse to certify? I kept thinking about this, that could have like several counties just refuse to certified. This is something that attorney Mark Elias has been warning about. And I wanted to sort of tell you a little about what he's been talking about, because this is very real. Trump Trump was trying to Michigan voting officials to do this in 2020. we've learned from some of the criminal case is the extent of it um might remember he flew those election officials out to the white house you know just to talk just to see I think it was wayne county yeah um are more protections than I might have thought to make sure that in states that the elections are actually certified that you can't just have one person hold up the entire thing um state level can take over so if you have at least some trustworthy state officials they can step in and fix it if the local official is refusing. Other states, the courts can step in. Makes sense. That's what I expect a mandamus to come in, to them to step in and fulfill their duties. Like those clerks who refuse to issue marriage licenses, it's about on that level. If they just won't comply with the court order at that point, then they can be removed. Had some good ideas about this, because this is a very real concern that could hold up the election for a long time. He said that we should clearly define the power of state officials in the certification process. So just like make sure we know exactly when state officials can step in, make sure they have the right to step in and just immediately remove the people that need to be removed when they have to be. Then remove the unnecessary links, what he calls in the certification chain up the way to abolish the requirement that the partisan governor or secretary of state or election board is the final word on the results. You have to have some kind of independent certification that has to happen somehow, because we're getting to that point, unfortunately, where we have to completely rethink all of this stuff to make sure that we're not allowing conspiracy theories. And, you know, these people that I just can't believe some of these stories I'm hearing about election officials that are in these positions that don't believe in anything. And I mean, certainly we have multiple election officials now that hack their own voting machines to try to make these points. Peters just going to jail now for nine or 10 years for doing that.

0:35:43 Thomas: Yeah yeah that that's that's

0:35:45 Matt: Want to get into that one. Yeah.

0:35:45 Thomas: Fun. I've, me too. So much we've wanted to get into.

0:35:50 Matt: But this one, you know, that I I've been looking for holes and I was thinking about things like that. Like, what if you get a bunch of judges that agree about this Fifth Circuit, cast you rule that it's only cast when it's actually been received and that all of these ballots that are received after election day get thrown out? What if you have certifications that are denied up and down the chain? Know, obviously, we're not as worried about a January 6th type situation this time because we have Kamala Harris and she's going to certify her in election. Election. So there's not gonna be that kind of pressure and maybe January 6th will come and go without any issues.

0:36:16 Thomas: A different thing will be January 6th, though. It's

0:36:19 Matt: Yeah, what else might it be, right? How And much turmoil are we going to have in these state elections? And I think it's in our interest to try to wrap these things up as quickly as possible, that all the courts expedite these hearings as much as they can, and that we get final answers as soon as we can, because the tension is what it is right now. The end of the day, though, the most probable answer answer from election. The thing that looks the most likely from everything I've seen is that the Democrats win the House and the Republicans win the Senate, and we also win the presidency. I'm hoping. That's my sort of, that's what I think is the most probable answer. That'S what I want to happen, obviously.

0:36:48 Thomas: Obviously.

0:36:48 Matt: And again, we want the whole thing if we can get the whole thing. But at least if we have the House, then they're not going to be impeaching Kamala Harris for her entire term. And maybe we actually start to get some things through. You we will see. Think the best outcome is unfortunately really going to be possible that we get the hat track of House, Senate, and White House. I just don't see that happening. We can hope for at least something that we can control.

0:36:52 Thomas: Of course. And our stupid system has way too many filibuster points. So I think another thing to think about, in addition to, can you know, try to make that wave happen. But as you're saying, unlikely. It's And I do think statistically, at least right now, from what I'm seeing, that that does seem like the most likely, though most likely doesn't mean 80 percent, 20 20 percent, 90 percent. It means, you 47 percent. Yeah. If that's the outcome, I think another important thing to do is make sure we're talking about this appropriately. The other day I was thinking this when I heard, you of a stump speech by Kamala. And I do wish when we're making campaign promises these days, it would be followed by or preceded by if we have the House and the Senate, if we control these things, because there are a significant chunk of people in our country who don't understand that that's how it works now. And what they do is then two years later in the midterms, let's say that the outcome you're talking about happens, two years years later midterms come up well what did kamala really do she promised this she promised that what she really do oh but the republicans controlled the senate yeah but what she do you know it's and it's I think

0:38:12 Thomas: If that happens one important thing will be trying to educate people and talk about it appropriately and really it's it's not and it's Not an excuse that's literally just the reason like they can't you it's they the burden on who it should be the reason x thing didn't get passed is because where did it die? The Senate, which is controlled by Republicans and emphasizing if something doesn't happen, why didn't it happen?

0:38:11 Matt: Yeah, you know that's a really good point generally that I think that elections every time should be an opportunity for civics lessons and I think the candidates should be doing that too. It should just be like you're saying, like if these things are meant, if I'm able to get in this place, this is how I'm going to do it. And these are the limits of my my power. I think being honest about that too. A piece of New York Times I still think about last year with, they were just interviewing voters, sort of these undecided, don't really know what's going on type voters. Somebody identified as a financial analyst in Las Vegas who said that she just couldn't forgive Joe Biden for striking down Roe v. Wade. And they're like, you know how that happened? And they explained it. They walked her through it. And she's like, oh, well, I just saw all these restrictions going into place when he became president. So I thought that was him. I mean, that's just like, how do you get through to that? I don't know.

0:39:17 Thomas: I know.

0:39:17 Matt: I'm hoping it's not that widespread. But think that we could use a lot more civics all around, and I'm hope we're providing some of that. But we just have to understand the system or we're not going to have one.

0:39:17 Thomas: I know. Yeah, that's a good quote right there.

0:39:29 Matt: It's important to me. Me. Also note one other thing I meant to mention is that about 30 of the potential electors in the Electoral College are election deniers, including 14 who previously falsely certified that Trump won when he didn't. Guess there aren't really rules around insurrectionists serving as electors, it seems like a concern. It's about 37% of the Electoral College, for whatever it's worth, that would be going up as electores previously had these opinions. Just wanted to note that. I Don't know exactly how that plays out. If an elector or just absolutely refuses to certify the right person? The Electoral Count Act actually makes it a lot harder for lawmakers makers to raise objections to electors so that can cut both ways I think but I think the idea was just to make sure that we don't have these bumps on the way to certification once they actually do it but you know the electoral college being what it is I don't think they can actually cause that much trouble um

0:40:11 Thomas: Lots of election deniers on the ballot doesn't seem great um of potential vulnerabilities in the election system doesn't seemed great rulings that could become precedent I don't know I I don' t totally understand how how that one worked with the fifth circuit so that that isn't going to be a problem this time but maybe next time is that what you're saying

0:40:28 Matt: And it's something they could use in the post game after the election when they start bringing all these challenges they can start using this logic and if it's in the fifth circuit I mean it's pretty well established even though they didn't grant the injunction they said that's how they interpret it so that's you know a lot of of states that matter in the fifth circuit so

0:40:40 Thomas: So they announced they put out an ad saying hey we're idiots over here who are willing to just say anything to win so if you want to challenge anything yeah based this incredibly stupid logic we're uh we're here open 24 7 yeah

0:40:46 Matt: Just take us up on it sure uh marijuana is on the ballot in five states arkansas florida nebraska north dakota and south dakota and we've got psychedelics in massachusetts which I'm pretty excited about I think that's going to pass just fine um as we've already discussed in past shows we've got eight questions on on whether non -citizens can vote. We talked about that last time.

0:41:13 Matt: And there's also some interesting judicial reforms. Some of them good, some of them bad. But trying to bring them actually more in line, something like what they're trying to do in Arizona, where they actually bring them in line with the kinds of things the Supreme Court of the United States should be doing. Because right now the Supreme Courts can review their own ethical problems, and they're try to take that out of their hands. So I can support that.

0:41:11 Thomas: Still no yeah I'm not a doctor but that seems like a conflict of interest

0:41:32 Matt: Yeah, a little bit. And it certainly is for the Supreme Court, but I don't think that's ever going to change until Congress imposes something on them if they can try to do that. These are just some things to look out for. I know it's kind of a potpourri here, but just wanted to throw together some kind of along the lines of what we've been talking about, about the effects of conspiracy theories, about what's going on in the United States. That it's just something to watch. I think it needs to be talked about more. That's why we're here. I think It's something that really, maybe not as much this election cycle, though every election cycle it's mattering more. It could matter a lot more the next one if we don't start really changing these rules and locking things down in ways that don't allow the states the kind of freedom that could cause real chaos in these elections. That's what I'm really concerned about more than anything. Don't want to get people worked up the week before the election. I think things are going to be okay.

0:42:12 Thomas: We should be worked up I don't know worked up enough to vote get people to vote tell everyone you're not about just keep it keep the positive message going um depends Depends on what you mean by worked up, I guess.

0:42:22 Matt: If we need to go to the streets, we go to the streets. But I think, I don't want people to be lying awake worrying about it, I guess. There's nothing you can do about it right now.

0:42:26 Thomas: But be calm about it.

0:42:29 Matt: Anyway, well, you know how I am. But, I think I really trying to think about other things, like I said at the beginning of the show. I've really been trying not to focus on it. That's why reading about some of this stuff kind of got me going again. I But would advise everybody else to do that too. But just be aware of these things. And if we needs to talk again about some these election problems, I hope we don't, then we'll get into them.

0:42:49 Matt: I want to end with a moment of hope, too. Sorry, update something I mentioned, because it's actually really relevant to us. Talked a couple shows about Poland and about the fact that after this plane crash that took out a lot of the government, unfortunately, it was a terrible, terrible national tragedy. It was something that really affected a lot people, that they this conspiracy theory that you had to be screened for, basically, to be part of the Polish government. The Law and Justice Party became a a hard right, extreme MAGA thing, Now, right? This ends with good news, though, because what I didn't say, I actually hadn't caught up on the latest in Poland, is that they did actually lose. The Law and Justice Party is now out of power. We can do it too. Donald

0:42:50 Thomas: Was going to say we don't have a footnote fetish because it's Monday, but if you have something like it, there Oh Yeah.

0:43:24 Matt: Tusk, the former president of the EU, is now their president and perfectly fine. That really gave me hope when I read that, that Poland turned it around. And they were far deeper in it than we are, from what I've read. They were really in another world. They Were operating in a way that even gives me a lot of hope that people can see what's going on and do something about it. And I just wanted to leave with that.

0:43:43 Thomas: Yeah, I hope so. All right. Well, thanks so much, Matt. Matt. And thanks so much for listening, everyone. Vote. Do it. Please help others vote. If you've done all that, thank you. Please support the show at patreon .com slash law or vote on us by leaving us a nice review somewhere. You know, five stars is the only amount that matters. So please do that somewhere. And it helps us out. It helps more people hear us. But thanks for listening and see you for some T3B on Wednesday and Rapid Response Friday.

0:44:07 Clip: This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC, All Rights Reserved. It is produced and edited by Thomas Smith, who also provided the fabulous intro and outro music used with permission.

0:44:24 Thomas: We're idiots over here who are willing to just say anything to win so