Matt Kittle (4:45)

I like the term that you use, Californicated. It's very red hot chili pepper of you, but it is very true. I mean, that's what we've seen over and over again. I see it from conservatives across the country in purple states and that's what Virginia is despite.

Ken Cuccinelli (5:06)

Yeah, well, let me comment on that.

Matt Kittle (5:07)

Yeah.

Ken Cuccinelli (5:08)

The reason we're not a red state anymore is because Republicans and democrats in Washington D.C. can't control themselves on. And let's not, let's not just blame Democrats. Republicans have done this too. My only John McCain quote is that saying that legislators, congressmen, spend like drunken sailors is offensive to drunken sailors who were at least spending their own money. And, and he was right about that. He never did anything about it. But good quote. But on a bipartisan basis, as long as they keep growing the federal government, all those Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, California, big government people are going to move here to work in the big government and they're going to vote for more big government and they're going to, those votes are going to get cast in Northern Virginia and we're going to get bluer and bluer and bluer and we'll have Republicans in part to blame in Washington D.C. oh, no doubt about it.

Matt Kittle (6:09)

I mean, I think that puts it all in perspective. And yes, I like the quote from McCain a great deal. The man himself, as you mentioned, didn't do much to change things. And really for conservatives who were looking for conservative action, they came to the wrong place. Just like those looking for moderates in Abigail Spanberger, a moderate Nabigo Spanberger picked the the wrong person as well. Let's talk about how Democrats in Virginia want to make the state blue. And the way to do that along along the way, of course, is this whole redistricting scheme and scam. Good news on that front. This week we'll see where the Supreme Court ultimately goes. And I guess that's what I want to ask you. Are you getting a sense that this Supreme Court will look at the actual law here and say, first of all, the process wasn't followed in accordance with the state constitution? And then ultimately we have all kinds of other issues here. Where do you see all of this going in Virginia?

Ken Cuccinelli (7:23)

Yeah. So Virginia's Supreme Court has historically been far less political than say Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Montana Supreme Courts. We've seen some California, we've seen some very political Supreme Courts. Four of the justices were selected by Republican General Assemblies, three by Democrat General Assembl. And we're one of two states where the General assembly picks judges and justices. The other is South Carolina. And I think that's the least bad system out there so long as you don't have a lunatic General Assembly. Unfortunately, we seem to be headed in that direction in Virginia. But at the moment, the Virginia Supreme Court is a highly respectable Supreme Court. And I would be very surprised if they do not throw out the referendum as being in violation of the strict procedures for amending the state Constitution that are in place in Virginia under the state constitution. So for listeners, this is all a state constitutional fight. Nothing here is going to go to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of Virginia, scova, not scotus, is going to be where the buck stops on all of these arguments. There are no federal arguments that I know of that are viable to challenge what's going on here. They're all state constitutional and state statutory challenges.

Matt Kittle (9:01)

Well, I think that the SCOTUS, the U.S. supreme Court has made it pretty clear we're going to get into a monumental decision written by Justice Alito coming up in just a bit. But, you know, they made it clear that, you know, politics is part of the the map drawing, the congressional map drawing process. And that is exactly politics and partisanship. I mean, it's hypocritical of the Democrats in Virginia because they have talked about for so long how evil gerrymandering is. And this is, if not the most, it is right up there with the most gerrymandered maps ever proposed. But they also supported an independent commission, a referendum back six years ago that established an independent commission to create these maps, congressional maps,

Ken Cuccinelli (10:02)

and that was put in place by a 2 to 1 margin of Virginia voters.

Matt Kittle (10:06)

Exactly.

Ken Cuccinelli (10:07)

It was overwhelming.

Matt Kittle (10:08)

Exactly. So, I mean, the hypocrisy is built in. But you know, if they would have just done this on politics, that would have been one thing. But they messed up the process, as I can see it. Can you explain how that works in Virginia and what went afoul here with the special session and all of that?

Ken Cuccinelli (10:28)

So there are three cases right now. I refer to them as the 2025 violations, the 2026 violations, and then one case on the map itself. You don't ever get to the map unless the referendum survives. Right. So there are two constitutional challenges and one statutory challenge from 2025. That was the case heard by the Virginia Supreme Court in oral argument on Monday, April 27. The 2026 violations were ruled on the day after the referendum by a trial court in Southwest Virginia, Judge Hurley, who enjoined the certification of the election, meaning he stopped the counting of the votes. He stopped the state board from certifying the outcome. And that was directly appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court, as one would expect. And what one would also expect is that the Supreme Court would stay the trial court's injunction pending the outcome of the case. That would be the normally expected behavior. But the day after the oral argument in the 2025 case, remember, the injunction is for violations in the 2026 case. Not to. I'm trying to simplify this. The day after the oral argument in the 2025 case, the Supreme Court denied Attorney General, Virginia Attorney General J. Jones request to lift the injunction. And I interpret that to be a strong suggestion, no more than a suggestion. There's nothing definite about this, but a strong suggestion that the Virginia Supreme Court plans to throw out the referendum. And so they've left that injunction in place so as not to start the sort of alternative election machinery, if you will, based on the new maps. The day that alt machinery would have started would have been today under House Bill 29, as you and I talk, Friday, May 1st. And. But that's been enjoined, so that's frozen in place. We still have our 65 maps, some of the fairest maps in the country, which would have flipped to some of the most Extremely gerrymandered in the country if the Democrats prevail on this. And so that's kind of the order of events. We're waiting for an order, a final order one way or the other in the 2025 violations. If I had to guesstimate, I would guesstimate today is possible, but next week is when I would expect to see an order disposing of the case, meaning a final order. And I think that final order is going to throw the referendum out because of just how egregious the violations were. And you asked what those were. So 2025, like a lot of states, we're not unique. To amend the Virginia constitution, our general assembly has to pass a proposed amendment at one point in time through the general assembly and then there has to be an intervening election to elect a new general assembly and then the new general assembly has to pass the exact same proposed amendment. So those are the rules. And when I say rules, I mean in the requirements of our state constitution. So the Democrats gave us a 45 day election last time. They had the governorship in both houses of our legislature. So in 2025, the election that elected Abigail Spanberger governor began on September 19th of 2025. Well, the general assembly in its finite wisdom did not move on this amendment until late October. They didn't pass it until Halloween. How appropriate is that?

Matt Kittle (14:50)

Yeah, right. Monstrous.

Ken Cuccinelli (14:53)

Yes. And that was after a million, over a million Virginians had already voted in the 2025 election. And they want to treat that as the intervening election. And their argument is basically, well, intervening election just means election day. Now, their lawyer couldn't answer the question from justice Wes Russell who asked, well, what if the general assembly passed it at 6pm on election day, our polls are open till 7. Would that be good enough? And in fact, the lawyer for the attorney general of Virginia couldn't answer that question. So Wes Russell had an another zinger. It was the first question out of the box where he asked the lawyer for the attorney general, does the vote last week matter at all to the consideration of our legal, the legal issues before us? No, your honor, it doesn't matter at all. That gutted pulled the rug out from under Jay Jones public comments from the time the referendum passed. He's. He caged couched himself as simply defending the will of the people. I'm just, I so respect your vote. I'm defending your vote. No mention of the constitution or the laws. And even when CNN would press him on the ballot, language on the no 90 days going by on the Intervening. He wouldn't answer any of it. And here in the very first question, his own lawyer yanked the rug out from under the only public explanation he had been giving for the six days since the referendum passed.

Matt Kittle (16:34)

Amazing.

Ken Cuccinelli (16:35)

Yeah, so it was that. That was, I have to say, that was, that was actually a moment of entertainment.

Matt Kittle (16:41)

It really was. These guys caught up in, you know, their own language, their own comments, and we've seen that over and over again. By the way, speaking of their own comments, if Virginia does not. The Supreme Court does not allow this to go forward. I believe Jay Jones may pull out his two bullets and we could have trouble here. So, you know, watch out for that. Yeah, this is this the same attorney general who, you know, was, was preaching violence and got himself into trouble for some, some emails as he's, you know, talking about trying to control violence. But, uh, that's a subject for a different day. Final, final question. On the Virginia side, all of this doesn't even get to the very confusing language of the ballot. And that's what the, the judge in Tazewell county has talked about as well. The, the language on the ballot was. Well, it was news speak. It was Orwellian, you know, if you believe in fair elections. Well, this map would not deliver fair elections. It would deliver a 10 1. In the Virginia House delegation for Democrats. What do you think of the language question?

Ken Cuccinelli (18:06)

Well, the language is pretty extreme. So some states have laws requiring balanced language. Our state requires plain English. It's called a plain English rule, not surprisingly, perhaps. And the, the judge in southwest Virginia, this is one of the 2026 violations, found that the language was so extreme, it was so misleading that it violated the plain English rule. A regular reading of it was completely misleading and confusing according to the judge. And a lot of people have zeroed in on this. Let me read it for your listeners. This is how the question read on the ballot. Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections while ensuring Virginia's standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census? Yes or no?

Matt Kittle (19:13)

Well, yes. How can you not want fair elections, Ken? I can't believe that they.

Ken Cuccinelli (19:20)

Well, anybody wouldn't. If it came down to it, our side could produce voters who would say, I thought I was voting for fair maps. I didn't realize I was voting for this 10 to 1 extreme item. So, you know, the judge's position that this was misleading is a very strong one. And again, this is a very tough thing for Virginia to defend after the fact. And I really feel like this radical Marxist General assembly we have now really just took a gangster view of this. They just bowled through there. They didn't care what the rules were and they were going to bully the court after. Now, I do think they expected to win by 10 or 15 points and it might have been a little easier as a simple human matter to, to bully the court if you'd won by a lot. But they didn't win by a lot. They outspent our side by three or four to one. Yeah. And they still only won by three points. I'm going to. I'm going to kind of retweet this myself. I'm going to repost the ballot language so people can see it more easily in my Twitter feed at Ken Cuccinelli, where I've been commenting pretty heavily on on this case. Americans have never been this pessimistic. The Watchdog on Wall Street Podcast with Chris Markowski Every day, Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the it affects your wallet.

Matt Kittle (20:51)

A record 54% of US consumers now

Ken Cuccinelli (20:54)

say their financial situation is worse compared

Matt Kittle (20:57)

to a year ago due to higher prices.

Ken Cuccinelli (20:59)

That's up 900% in five years and higher now than it was in the 70s. Whether it's happening in D.C. or down

Matt Kittle (21:05)

on Wall street, it's affecting you financially.

Ken Cuccinelli (21:07)

Be informed.

Matt Kittle (21:07)

Check out the Watchdog on Wall street

Ken Cuccinelli (21:09)

podcast with Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast.

Commercial Announcer (21:14)

Lots of places can accidentally expose you to identity theft. Doctor's offices, online retailers, insurance companies, the list goes on. Thankfully, Lifelock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats to your identity, which is way more than anyone can do on their own. LifeLock keeps an eye on your personal information, credit applications, finances and more. And if they find anything suspicious, like new loans or changes to your financial accounts, they alert you right away, all through text, phone, email, or the Lifelock app. Even better, alerts are automatically activated the moment you become a Lifelock member. No extra work on your part. Get the alerts that could make all the difference. Don't wait. Join LifeLock now. Visit lifelock.com iheart and save up to 40% your first year. That's lifelock.com iheart for 40% off terms apply.

Matt Kittle (22:18)

Yeah, it is amazing too, that you have J. Jones and you have the Marxist assembly and everybody on the left saying, well, you can see the significant win we just had. That shows you and I mean it. It is disingenuous just like the language of the ballot, just like the party itself. Our guest today is Ken Cinelli, national chairman of the Election Transparency Initiative. Ken, of course, the former Attorney General of Virginia. And much going on, plenty going on elsewhere. This was a big week. Louisiana v. Calais. Huge ruling that ended discrimination in map making. And Justice Alito had some extremely powerful language, I thought, in his 6:3, the 6:3 majority that he wrote, noting that allowing race to play any part in government decision making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context. He went on to say, the Constitution almost never permits the federal government or a state to discriminate on the basis of race, such as where it is improperly used to draw maps that intentionally dilute or otherwise harm minority voters. And this was indeed the case in Louisiana, where you had a court demanding that the state create a second black only district, which, you know, really does drive home the point that this there is discrimination in all kinds of different forms, not just in the traditional sense. What did you think about this, this ruling from the court?

Ken Cuccinelli (24:08)

Well, first of all, I don't think it was surprising at all. Some people on the left may have been shocked by it, but I don't even think they were surprised. This court has been moving in the direction of being against discrimination more and more as time has gone on, including the Voting Rights Act. And they said the Voting Rights act is there and available and legitimate and viable to attack intentional discrimination where you're trying to discriminate against particularly black voters. That's what the Voting Rights act was originally for, and that continues the dissent. And the left says, well, that's impossible. We can't be held to required of having to prove that people were actually discriminating. Well, wait a minute, why not? This is this to most Americans who have this explained, it's just plain old common sense. So, you know, common sense breaking out is, I know, very offensive to the left. The truth is their opponent and this Supreme Court is being very blunt with its view of the Voting Rights Act. It's there and we have come a long way, baby, so to speak. And look, I was the attorney general of a southern state, Virginia, that had a history of actually using its laws to suppress black vote. Yeah, we had work to do and we were one of the reasons the Voting Rights act was needed in 1965. And as this Supreme Court has said over 10 years ago in the Jefferson county case case, Congress, when they reauthorized it, provided no evidence. There's nothing in the record to suggest that systemic racism, and we had that in Virginia existed any longer or was ongoing anywhere in America. That was over a decade ago. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that here, more than a decade later, they say, yes, you can always prosecute intentional discrimination. You can challenge lines drawn to disadvantaged black voters because they're black voters, by the way. You can't just, it's not a violation of the Voting Rights act to draw lines that will use the word discriminate. But that, no, I won't use the word discriminate that black voters don't like because they also happen to be Democrat voters. Put more clearly, political gerrymandering is not racial discrimination. And this court in other cases has made clear there is no federal standard to bar political gerrymandering. For example, like the entire New England congressional delegation.

Matt Kittle (27:07)

Exactly. Or Illinois. We can take a look in the Midwest. Why do I suddenly feel like a Virginia Slim cigaret that maybe it was the advertising that we've come a long way, baby. And we have, definitely. And so I'm, I'm curious as I look at the California maps that were, this whole process, once again, like Virginia pushed to eliminate a referendum that had created or a, an amendment to the California Constitution that had created an independent commission. Now we're going to temporarily, as you noted before, we temporarily change that because Donald Trump wanted Texas to, to redraw its map. So we're going to do that and we're going to do it even more so. And when they did that, Ken, they ended up doing exactly what this court says is not allowed. They ended up putting Hispanics in black districts. And so that they used, they clearly used color and race to affect their, their map drawing in, in a number of districts. What do you think this Louisiana v. Calais means for those California gerrymandered maps?

Ken Cuccinelli (28:31)

So Calais really just unshackles states. Understand, you know, as an AG who had to go through pre clearance, the last pre clearance with doj, the Voting Rights act required you to consider race and punished intentional discrimination, which is consideration of race. I mean, and legislators for a long time have never grasped how do you do this? And it's always been this shot in the dark to a certain degree. There have been these vague guidelines provided by various courts and they differed from court to court. But how do you draw maps that don't factor race in as the priority when you're, say, Virginia, when you're required to draw majority black districts and so forth? Well, that era of confusion is over. State legislatures can draw districts so long as they do not discriminate against black voters or any other minority voters. Voter Rights Act's been expanded, and that's the key. And so plaintiffs will have to come in and show that maps they don't like were the product of intentional discrimination based on race. I noticed today CNN was reporting that the gains with black voters that Donald Trump made in 2024 have held that the, the margin, the Democrat registration versus Republican registration margin of black voters is at the lowest point it's been since 2000. Before 2006. That's reporting from CNN. And that again, Trump's gains in the black community have held. Now it's still disproportionately as an entire demographic voting more Democrat.

Matt Kittle (30:47)

Right.

Ken Cuccinelli (30:48)

But it's not just this 9010 monolith any longer. And so one of the things the Supreme Court said is it you have to separate out political considerations from racial considerations. And one of the things that the Democrat Party has taken massive advantage of is conflating actually separating entirely being black with being a Democrat. And so they draw districts and they force districts to be drawn based on race, which ends up being an outstanding proxy for drawing Democrat districts as a mandate of the Voting Rights Act. So that's why they're really mad is they lost their proxy by which they gain seats they wouldn't otherwise have. There's probably a dozen seats in the south that if the south were drawing maps like New England, the Democrats wouldn't have.

Matt Kittle (31:58)

Yeah.

Ken Cuccinelli (31:59)

Mike Johnson wouldn't have a four vote margin. He'd have a 32 vote margin.

Matt Kittle (32:05)

The census is part of that as well.

Ken Cuccinelli (32:07)

Yeah, that's a whole nother problem.

Matt Kittle (32:08)

That's a whole other topic we'll have to address at a later time. But back to California, here's the question that I have. It is in that, that language. It is also in the intent. But what if California Democrats say, well, we didn't really try to smash, you know, this Hispanic population and with this black population, which is, by the way, another case in, in Texas. What we're. We weren't doing that because we intentionally were trying to be racist. We were just trying to be nakedly political. You know, we have a better chance of, of these folks voting for us they traditionally have. And that's our motivation in essence. Ken, can they just lie and say, well, no, we didn't, we weren't trying to be racist. That, that's a byproduct of this, certainly, but we were just trying to be political.

Ken Cuccinelli (33:08)

Yes. Well, not while never admitting it. Yeah. You know, that's an important part of it. We're never admitting it.

Matt Kittle (33:17)

So that's, that's, that's something I think to look for as we, we move forward. Because one thing we know for certain, the left, which is, you know, the radical left, is the Democratic Party in this country. It's like rust. It never sleeps. It, it will continue to work on all kinds of manipulate the system any way they can. Which brings us to one of the, the biggest lies that they tell when it comes to voter verification and it involves race. And it really is to me, a, a disgusting argument that they use to make sure that they can keep voter verification, voter ID and US citizenship documentary proof out of the election process. They can keep election integrity out of the election process. They say, well, there are millions of black people and millions of women who cannot get an id, which most of us look at and say that is preposterous on its face because those millions of people are using ID every day for you name the reason. What do you think of that argument moving forward as it relates to, you know, the Save America act, which we'll get into momentarily.

Commercial Announcer (34:54)

Lots of places can accidentally expose you to identity theft. Doctor's offices, online retailers, insurance companies, the list goes on. Thankfully, LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats to your identity, which is way more than anyone can do on their own. LifeLock keeps an eye on your personal information, credit applications, finances and more. And if they find anything suspicious like new loans or changes to your financial accounts, they alert you right away, all through text, phone, email or the LifeLock app. Even better, alerts are automatically activated the moment you become a LifeLock member. No extra work on your part. Get the alerts that could make all the difference. Don't wait. Join LifeLock now. Visit LifeLock.com and save up to 40% your first year. That's LifeLock.com iheart for 40% off terms apply.

Ken Cuccinelli (35:54)

Well, you know, it is easy to slip right into this Save America Act. Then again, this common sense and the abandonment of it by the radical left and frankly, really, if you try to advance common sense, and I do this as the chairman of the Election Transparency Initiative all the time, voter ID like you say, even back to that radical right wing organization CNN. Their last poll on the subject showed 71% of Democrat voters, not of everyone of Democrat voters, support voter id. And if I remember correctly, confirming US Citizenship to vote, vote. This the only place these common sense ideas for securing your election and preserving the sanctity of your citizenship are not Overwhelmingly popular is the United States Senate. Yeah, right, that's it. You can literally have this vote at a random pick your locality. Randomly wouldn't work everywhere, but at your average Democrat party meeting. And they'll vote for it.

Matt Kittle (37:09)

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. This is in 80, 20, in some places, a 9020 issue. And yet you have the Democrats fighting like hell to stop it. And I've asked this question like any mediocre attorney, and I'm not one. I just play one on the radio. You got to know the answer to the question before you ask it. And. And I do, but the question is this. Why are they doing this if it's so popular with their own constituency?

Ken Cuccinelli (37:49)

So one thing that people often don't realize is just because something's popular in a poll doesn't mean it will move votes. I'll use a Virginia example. When I was in the state Senate 20 years ago, if you asked voters, you know, what's the most important issue to them? Transportation. Because we have traffic in Northern Virginia. Blew the doors off, the polling. I mean, just through the roof. And yet how many people decided their vote based on transportation? Very, very few, actually. They decided on other things. And so, yes, these are very popular. And that's important to know. And I'm sure it factors into how people vote and who they vote for. I will tell you that we have found that the place where you can move the needle in an election on election issues is primaries, not general elections.

Matt Kittle (38:51)

Yeah, I bet. Yeah, that's. That's where you get your most. Your. Your most passionate voters to come out. And they're passionate about particular.

Ken Cuccinelli (38:59)

Well, and you can have, I mean, especially on the Republican side, you know, squishy Republicans, they just want to do chamber of commerce things. They don't want to deal with things where the media will be mad at them, like securing elections or keeping men out of women's bathrooms to go back 10 years, etc. They don't want to do the icky things. Those icky things are where culture and security within the country come from. So that's something to keep in mind. And it's an important reason for all of your listeners to participate in those primaries. If you care about election security, usually the place you can have the most impact on it with your vote vote is the primary, not the general.

Matt Kittle (39:47)

You bet you use the term. And so I will use it as well. What do you think of those squishy Republicans? Because that term, squishy, describes a majority of Republicans in the U.S. senate who refuse to do in the Election integrity circles, for those who value election integrity, they refuse to do the right thing here. And you've got John Thune, Senate Majority Leader saying well our hands are tied, we're trying. Look at this. We debate every once in a while the Save America act, which again for those scoring along at home really asks two very simple things. Again, two things that are extremely popular with the electorate. One is that you have a photo ID to vote in election. The other is that you prove that you're a U.S. citizen to vote in U.S. elections. Not hard, not difficult. But they have struggled with their squishiness it seems to me. Where do you think this is going ultimately? Because it looks to me I don't have a lot of confidence in this Senate. I'll just put it that way.

Ken Cuccinelli (40:59)

Yeah, well I don't have a ton either. If I were a betting man, I wouldn't be betting in favor of this. But I do have hope, unfortunately. I think the momentum on this issue was before they went on vacation and if they were really serious about it, they'd have stuck around. And when I see people like Senator Kennedy, who I usually appreciate very much talking about doing this in reconciliation when he knows very well this cannot be done in reconciliation. The bird rule thinks we're too stupid to know that. Yeah, I get, I get head shakingly disappointed in a Senator that I often have a great deal of appreciation for.

Matt Kittle (41:48)

Yeah, I, I don't blame you for that because Senator Kennedy is a breath of fresh air in so many different areas of governance in common sense and he's highly quotable as a journalist. That's always important too of course. But no, you're absolutely right. And so here's the ultimate problem with that Ken, is as I see it, if this republic squishy Republican Senate cannot get this done, how much is that going to depress turnout among conservatives? Election integrity loving conservatives?

Ken Cuccinelli (42:30)

Yeah, it's, I will say this positive thing. Since 2020, the entire right of center world, and it continues to this day, has been more unified in making gains in improving the quality of our elections. That doesn't mean any advantage for the right. Unlike how the left looks at it. It, it just means making them more accountable, more accessible and more transparent and secure. I have never seen not just the conservative coalition but, but the establishment people too stick with an issue this long with as little internal, you know, fighting. We're, we're not satisfied with the establishmentarians weakness on the SAVE act and it's so critical it would literally bring up the quality of elections across America overnight without imposing really much of anything on any of the states. I mean, two thirds of the states already have voter ID requirements and it's already illegal for noncitizens to vote. But the states have no way to enforce it because of screw ups in federal law and federal court rulings. The federal government is the problem on that. Only Washington can fix that. Only Washington can fix that. And so they should.

Matt Kittle (44:09)

I think what we have seen is this Congress, this Republican controlled Congress, hoping that the Supreme Court would fix it. And of course the Supreme Court has, and just recently, as we talked about in Calais, just fixed a long term problem with federal law, the vote, the Voting Regulation act, you know, this, those sorts of things the Supreme Court does. But in the long game, and I guess my final question for you is, is this, what does the world look like? What does the, the Republic look like if Democrats win in the midterms? Because they're already talking this week about packing the courts. Yeah.

Ken Cuccinelli (45:01)

You know, if they want to, if they want to start proposing those kinds of things, then they're going to reveal to everyone what they're like, you know, they're going to have this internal fight and it won't, and it'll be very public because Donald Trump will veto all these. Of course it will. They'll, they'll show the world what they'll do if they have three way control, House, Senate and presidency. And it'll, and that'll be a factor in the 2028 election. And then what'll happen is, is even Democrats who get elected to do it, many of the close ones will have to commit to not doing these things. Now we just saw Abigail Spanberger tell us how against gerrymandering she was and then come in and do it. So these are no guarantees. But some people take that more seriously than obviously Abigail Spanberger does. And so it'll be very interesting to see how that plays out. These folks cannot restrain themselves. If they were strategic like China is strategic, like Iran, as evil as they are is strategic, they think long term and they would have wait, they would wait till past the 2028 election, try to win it and then do these things. But they cannot help themselves. Their base is so rabid, foaming at the mouth. You know, their brain hardly prioritizes. They can't keep things in order. That's, that's how they did, that's what happened with the judicial filibuster and that's how they lost it for Supreme Court justices, is they blew it for everything else. And of course The Republicans would get rid of it when it was convenient for their needs. And then the def. There'd be no defense on the part of the Democrats. And so you know that two and three and four year unrolling of these issues is going to be important, the timeline will be important and that the people of America will see the insanity. And you see it in a way. It's one thing to propose a bill today. It goes nowhere. But if the Dems control the House and those bills, a PAC Supreme Court bill comes out of the House and even Hakeem Jeffries is talking about stuff like this. So it's not like the speaker is going to stop it. They'll send it over to the Senate. It won't go anywhere in the Senate. But America will know this isn't just hyperbole by Republicans. This is what these Menshevik Bolsheviks have in mind.

Matt Kittle (47:41)

Indeed. And that's a scary thought. Enough to keep you up at night, hopefully to get you out to the polls. I tell you what, there's so much on this front and you folks at the Election Transparency Initiative are doing so much on this. If, if you wouldn't mind, just a quick explainer on what the Election Transparency Initiative does. I know it's all in the name.

Ken Cuccinelli (48:05)

It is. We're@electiontransparency.org and people can follow me at Ken Cuccinelli on Twitter and I cover these topics all the time. And we have been for over five years seeking to improve elections with things like voter ID, getting rid of Zuckerbucks. Now over 28 states have gotten rid of Zuckerbucks bucks privately funded election offices that work to the advantage of Democrats. It's like paying the elect the, the, the basketball officials. If the un, if UNC played uva and we, we were the road team. I went to uva, so we as UVA here.

Matt Kittle (48:43)

I figured as much. Yeah.

Ken Cuccinelli (48:45)

Yes. And you know, if UNC was paying the officials, everybody would know that or at least would have grave doubt, doubts about the officiating. Well, that's what Zuckerbucks was. And it in fact by itself explains the outcome of the 2020 election. It flipped enough states and votes in targeted areas to hand the election to Joe Biden. And that's without any of the other problems of 2020 like the hunter Biden laptop censorship. So many elected officials not following their own state's laws using Covid as the excuse. And. But we lead both at the federal and state levels, efforts to get things like the SAVE Act. We've advanced Zuckerbucks including in referenda participating in those and it's never lost when on the ballot to clean up elections one state at a time to make them more transparent. As you note our name suggests we would like you to be able to see literally every single thing in your state's election election except how your neighbors mark their ballot, right down to the computer code of the computers used to tally votes or in more electronically dependent states like Arizona to store ballot images in Georgia. And similarly we believe in open source architecture which doesn't exist anywhere yet. No more black boxes owned by Dominion Systems or ess. We should be able to see all of that code and geeks should be able to load it themselves on their own machines and run it themselves to make sure it will work correctly. And we have pursued that for over five years and continue to do that with great success. And we would appreciate it if folks would would join that effort@electiontransparency.org and thanks for having me.

Matt Kittle (50:48)

Yeah, absolutely. You guys are doing great job. A great job. Part of the whole election integrity movement that really has grown up around the awfulness that was 2020 and we could spend another hour talking all about that. But the good news is through the work of the Election Transparency Initiative and and others, we are seeing more confidence restored in elections. That's the most important thing because election integrity is coming back to our elections. Thanks to my guest today, Ken Cuccinelli, national Chairman of the Election Transparency Initiative. You've been listening to another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, senior elections correspondent at the Federalist. We'll be back soon with more. Until then, stay lovers of freedom and anxious for the fray.

Commercial Announcer (51:59)

Lots of places can expose you to identity theft. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats to your identity, which is way more than anyone can do on their own. If we find anything suspicious, like new loans or changes to your financial accounts, we alert you right away, all through text, phone, email or the LifeLock app. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com iHeart terms apply.

Matt Kittle (52:28)

Having MG can make cooking difficult.

Ken Cuccinelli (52:30)

But over the years, I've found some

Matt Kittle (52:32)

really helpful tools and tips that I'm excited to share. Hi, I'm Alicia.

Ken Cuccinelli (52:37)

I think cooking should always be fun, creative and of course, delicious.

Commercial Announcer (52:41)

These Black Bean burgers are hearty, full

Matt Kittle (52:43)

of flavor and MG friendly. You're gonna love them.

Ken Cuccinelli (52:47)

Check out Alicia's Black Bean Burger cooking video and other recipes. Full of tips and tricks. For managing common MG symptoms while cooking only at mg-united.com Ready, let's cook when

Matt Kittle (52:59)

Kohler, global design leader in luxurious kitchen and bath products, asked me to be their ambassador for timeless, elegant, durable cast iron, I said, I'm in. Soon after, I was in their Kohler, Wisconsin foundry watching molten iron poured, enamel applied by hand, and the beautiful finished pieces ready to ship. Since 1883, Kohler cast iron has been crafted by incredible artisans, and seeing it firsthand gave me a whole new appreciation for their craftsmanship. Now I'm proud to lend my stamp

Ken Cuccinelli (53:34)

of approval to my favorite Kohler cast

Matt Kittle (53:36)

iron products for their durability, beauty, and enduring style. Shop my curated picks@kohler.com as the Kohler Cast Iron Ambassador, I say, long live cast iron.