The Critical Election Integrity Battles That Will Define 2026

Summary

Federalist Radio Hour
Episode: The Critical Election Integrity Battles That Will Define 2026
Date: January 23, 2026
Host: Matt Kittle
Guest: Jay Christian Adams, President and General Counsel, Public Interest Legal Foundation

---

Overview

In this episode, Matt Kittle is joined by Jay Christian Adams to discuss the most urgent and controversial election integrity issues facing the United States as the 2026 midterm elections approach. Their conversation dives into pivotal court cases, the practical obstacles to clean voter rolls, ballot laws, battles over redistricting, the role of nonprofits in election offices, and legislative developments impacting voters’ confidence in electoral processes.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Supreme Court Ruling on Standing in Election Law (Bost Case)

• [01:09 – 05:39]
  • The Supreme Court recently decided the “Bost case,” expanding who has standing to sue over election law violations.
    • Adams: “This expands the universe of people who can bring a lawsuit to candidates.” [01:49]
  • However, standing for legislators (who aren’t also candidates) remains unresolved.
    • Adams: “This case does not say legislators have standing simply because they're legislators... If they're simply legislators who aren't on the ballot, that is unchanged.” [05:15–05:39]

2. Mail Ballot Deadlines and Destabilization

• [06:16 – 08:20]
  • Adams warns that late-arriving ballots create uncertainty, sow doubt, and destabilize the country.
    • Adams: “Late arriving ballots that cause late announcements of winners is the single most destabilizing component of American elections.” [06:41]
  • The meaning of when a vote is “cast” is subject to an upcoming Supreme Court case.

3. Dirty Voter Rolls: A Persistent Issue

• [08:20 – 12:25]
  • Adams voices concern over court decisions weakening requirements for maintaining accurate voter rolls.
    • In Michigan, the 6th Circuit ruled that states don’t have to be effective, only make a “reasonable effort.”
    • Adams: “There is a court decision...that says states really don't have an obligation to keep clean voter rolls.” [08:51]
  • The lack of local political will to address the issue is “discouraging.”
    • Adams: “We went to the grave sites of the voters... Some of these people have been dead since the 90s and they're still on the active voter rolls.” [10:05]
  • Michigan’s defense: The problem is proportionally small and the law doesn’t require effectiveness, just effort.

4. The “SAVE Act” and Voter Citizenship

• [13:07 – 14:04]
  • The SAVE Act, requiring proof of citizenship to vote, has passed the House but is stalled in the Senate.
    • Adams: “It just doesn’t have the votes.” [13:44]

5. Major Litigation Focal Points for 2026

• [15:26 – 16:14]
  • Lawsuits against race-based redistricting (notably in California).
  • Lawsuit in Texas to uphold the right to a secret ballot.
    • Adams: “One is...race-based redistricting in California. We have a lawsuit against California... Another [is]...the secret ballot in Texas...” [15:26]
  • Ongoing efforts to ensure clean voter rolls nation-wide.

6. Redistricting and State-Level Voting Rights Acts

• [18:02 – 20:32]
  • Blue states passing state-level “mini voting rights acts” to lock in progressive election reforms and make it easier to create race-based districts.
    • Adams: “They make race the center of state election law...You create all these race-based districts under state law.” [19:18]
    • Bureaucrats (state AGs) gain the power to override local election decisions.

7. Activist Groups and Nonprofits in Election Offices

• [21:12 – 23:56]
  • Democrats shifting millions into direct voter registration efforts, previously handled by nonprofits.
  • Adams details how partisan volunteers have staffed official election offices in blue cities and describes this as “standard operating procedure.”
    • Adams: “Some of these election offices...are populated by volunteers parachuted in from activist leftist 501c3 groups to work inside the election offices.” [23:21]

8. Ballot Harvesting: Ongoing but Lessened in Some States

• [24:09 – 24:26]
  • Ballot harvesting remains a factor, but many states have curtailed it. The “culture” varies by state.

9. Distrust in Elections: Both Sides Now

• [24:26 – 26:25]
  • The left now claims Republicans could “rig” the 2026 midterms, echoing rhetoric once reserved for critics of 2020.
    • Adams: "I really sincerely hope...that these sorts of claims become very out of fashion.” [25:16]
  • Adams expresses optimism that confidence is slowly returning, though distrust lingers.

10. Congress's Role and Limits in Election Integrity

• [26:25 – 28:51]
  • Federalism restricts Congress’s jurisdiction in most election matters.
  • State laws are the main arena for reforms, though minor Congressional changes (e.g., to the NVRA and transparency of voter rolls) could help.

11. Public Access to Voter Rolls

• [28:51 – 31:51]
  • War over access and price of voter rolls continues; PILF had some victories (New Mexico) and defeats (Alabama).
  • Several states—like Wisconsin—are exempt from transparency requirements, with ongoing litigation.

12. Final Thoughts: Is Election Integrity Improving?

• [32:30 – 32:45]
  • Adams: “A whole lot more than I was years ago. A lot of progress has been made. There's so many good things happening in this space.” [32:30]

---

Memorable Quotes & Notable Moments

• "Late arriving ballots that cause late announcements of winners is the single most destabilizing component of American elections."
  — Jay Christian Adams [06:41]

• "There is a court decision by the sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that says states really don't have an obligation to keep clean voter rolls."
  — Jay Christian Adams [08:51]

• "We went to the grave sites of the voters...Some of these people have been dead since the 90s and they're still on the active voter rolls."
  — Jay Christian Adams [10:05]

• "They make race the center of state election law...you create all these race-based districts under state law."
  — Jay Christian Adams [19:18]

• "Some of these election offices...are populated by volunteers parachuted in from activist leftist 501c3 groups to work inside the election offices."
  — Jay Christian Adams [23:21]

• "A whole lot more [confidence] than I was years ago. A lot of progress has been made."
  — Jay Christian Adams [32:30]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 01:09: Introduction to the Bost Supreme Court decision on standing
• 06:16: Discussion of mail ballots and election night destabilization
• 08:20: Status and challenges of cleaning voter rolls
• 13:07: The SAVE Act and voter citizenship requirements’ status
• 15:26: Key election integrity issues and ongoing litigation
• 18:02: Personnel and legal tactics in blue states’ election offices
• 21:12: DNC’s shift to controlling voter registration strategies
• 23:21: Nonprofits and activists within election offices
• 24:09: Ballot harvesting laws by state
• 26:25: Congress’s proper scope in election regulation
• 28:51: Fight for public access to voter rolls and transparency
• 32:30: Adams reflects on improved confidence in election integrity

---

Tone and Language

The conversation is direct, urgent, and occasionally wry, with Adams and Kittle speaking openly about their frustrations, skepticism about state actors’ motives, and hopes for restoring faith in elections. Adams combines legal expertise with anecdotal accounts (“We went to the grave sites...”), while Kittle often sets a combative, “ballgame” tone about the political stakes and the persistence of systemic issues.

---

For listeners seeking a comprehensive, critical perspective on election integrity as 2026 approaches, this episode surveys the high-stakes legal battles, legislative fights, unresolved vulnerabilities, and shifting tactics shaping the next midterms.

Transcript

[A]

And we are back with another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, senior elections correspondent at the Federalist and your experience Sherpa on today's quest for knowledge. As always, you can email the show at radio the federalist.com follow us on XDRLST. Make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast and of course, to the premium version of our website as well. Our guest today is Jay Christian Adams, president and general counsel for the Public Interest Legal foundation. And we talk about the critical topic of election integrity and the battles ahead in this critical midterm election year. Christian, thank you so much for joining us on this edition of the Federalist Radio Hour.

[B]

Thank you so much for having me. Great to be here.

[A]

Absolutely. We have a lot of ground to cover. As they used to say in the Smokey and the Bandit song, we've got a long way to go but a short time to get there or something like that. We're beginning our conversation today with the big story, a Supreme Court decision that I think will have a significant effect moving forward. It addresses standing of political candidates. The Supreme Court ruling on that case as we speak. I was wondering if we could delve into that and what that will all mean moving forward.

[B]

Yeah. So it's the Bost case was decided by the Supreme Court, effectively, I think, four to two to two. And the big issue there that's important is who can sue for violations of election law. Now, the good news, there's good news and bad news just so we can do both. The good news is this expands the universe of people who can bring a lawsuit to candidates. In other words, if you're running for Congress and an election law is being broken, then you can sue. I get that. That's a good thing that the Supreme Court ruled the way it did and said candidates can sue. What's a little important to understand on the other side of the ledger is this. Probably we need a lot more than just candidates having the right to sue. The Public Interest Legal foundation files lawsuits. We filed a lawsuit exactly like this case actually in North Dakota, challenging their acceptance of male balance late. And we lost on standing, just like Judicial Watch did in Illinois on today's case. And ours is not a candidate. It was essentially an election official. So the Standing Issue act is a big deal. It needs to go further. Today was a good step in the right direction.

[A]

It is a huge issue. And I'm thinking too, it wasn't settled today, but there were lawsuits in the last election cycle about state senators or lawmakers having standing in these issues. And we saw a pretty famous Pennsylvania case stalled out on that front. Where do you think that is heading for these others, like lawmakers who file lawsuits in these election cases?

[B]

Yeah, well, that's what the Supreme Court resolved. It's, it's settled now in, in the Bost case. Bost, by the way, that a candidate would have standing. That's what the big opinion was, the Supreme Court. Now, it was a fractured op. Amy Coney, Barrett and Kagan disagreed with it and said, yes, they're standing for this particular person, but it's because they're wasting and spending money after the election to make sure the law was followed, you know, send observers and that kind of thing. So they kind of had dollar bills standing in the concurrence. And of course, two justices dissented, said there is no standing. You're going to open up the floodgates to crazy people, like the normal stuff. And so it was essentially a 4, 2, 2 opinion.

[A]

Yeah, no, I think I didn't ask that question correctly. I know that the candidates now have standing according to the Supreme Court, but in the last election cycle, and we've seen this before, legislatures have sued collectively or many members of a state legislature have sued in an election dispute, particularly election integrity questions. And a case in Pennsylvania comes to mind where you had a federal judge there say, I'm sorry, we rely on these previous cases to assert that legislate legislators. The legislature does not have standing in these cases because of, you know, a lot of different things. I don't think this case dealt with that. Where do you think that might be heading based on and perhaps informed by this Supreme Court case?

[B]

Yeah, terrific question. My apologies. I had assumed in your question the legislators were on the ballot. Right, right. And that's the difference. Let. And so you're exactly right. This case does not say legislators have standing simply because they're legislators. If they were candidates, they would have standing. But if there's simply legislators who aren't on the ballot, that is unchanged.

[A]

All right, gotcha. And again, the Supreme Court kind of paused on that. One would say maybe balked at that. But we'll see perhaps down the road. Now we are in another critical. It sounds hyperbolic to say it, but every election cycle is critical. If you look at it from the point of view of do you want to save this republic, that's pretty critical. So all of that said, what do you see at PILF as being the biggest election integrity issues as we head into the 2026 midterm? Election year.

[B]

Yeah. I got to tell you, it's related to the Supreme Court case, which this case didn't reach the bigger issue. It only reached the small issue of whether candidates have standing. And that's the federal law that requires mail ballots or ballots to be received by election day. Yes, that's the underlying litigation. And boss, that was not touched by the Supreme Court. And I think that late arriving ballots that cause late announcements of winners is the single most destabilizing component of American elections. It's destabilizing to the country. I think it creates doubt, it invites mischief. And that issue is going to the Supreme Court in another case that will hopefully be resolved well before election day.

[A]

Yeah, that is critical. I know that you folks have been dealing with this for a long time. Ask some of the candidates in Nevada how critical that was. There's a gentleman who ran for Senate a few years back who can tell you all about that. But it's not just there. It's California. It's in so many different states. Where do you think that case will end up given what you've seen so far?

[B]

Yeah, it's a great question and it's a statutory text question. The question is, does federal law require all ballots to be in by election day? That's the issue before the Supreme Court. And the statute says election day. They have to be cast by election day. And so it's going to turn on what the meaning of cast is. And I think that cast means your ballot gets dropped in the official like basket. It doesn't mean it gets dropped in the mailbox or given to some contractor who comes to your front porch and takes the mail away. And so I think that it's huge. I think it's probably going to come out the right way, but I certainly won't want to bet put all my chips in the center of the table.

[A]

At the same time, we have to think about the dirty voter rolls out there. That's something the Public Interest Legal foundation has thought a lot about over the years. You've got a lot of cases in motion right now. We have seen some really awfully dirty voter rolls and the fruits of those voter rolls, of course, in the last couple of years in particular. Where does that stand and where do your legal action stand on that front?

[B]

Well, I got some bad news there. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case we brought against Jocelyn Benson in Michigan for having 25,000 dead people on the active voter rolls, which is barely subject to dispute. It's lock solid evidence. The sixth Circuit Said, hey, states don't really have to be effective in how they clean the rolls. They just have to try to. And we're like, no, that's not what the law says. And this, we have a petition with the US Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court doesn't take the case, guys, there is a court decision by the sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that says states really don't have an obligation to keep clean voter rolls. And so this is a huge issue. I think the, some Republican Party groups helped us, but we didn't get enough. We didn't get much in the way of broad energy on this. Nobody from Michigan, nobody. And it's sort of discouraging because this is the ball game whether we're going to have clean voter rolls or not.

[A]

Why is that? Why didn't you get that energetic response? I mean this is really where the rubber meets the road in terms of election integrity.

[B]

I don't know. I really don't. Maybe that's something you can do a show on and ask the people who should have. But it's discouraging. Look, all we can do is try as hard as we can. We litigated this. We went to the grave sites of the voters. Like we visited them in the graveyard with video. You can go to Public Interest Legal Foundation, Google Michigan Video graveyard. We actually went to the site. Some of these people have been dead since the 90s and they're still on the active voter rolls.

[A]

Well, what is the argument from Jocelyn Benson? I'm again like a mediocre attorney. I know the answer to this. But what is the answer from the, the Jocelyn Benson's of the world who by the way want to move from Secretary of State to be the next governor of Michigan. Keep that scary thought in mind. But, but how do they justify these dirty voter rolls?

[B]

So there's two ways they do. The first is the proportionality way. They say, hey, this is only 25,000 dead people on the active rolls out of 6 million. So we're, and we removed 150,000 dead people last year. So we're making a reasonable effort to keep the rolls clean. Go away. That's the first argument. It's a tiny fraction of the problem and they removed a bunch of people. The second argument they're making is the law doesn't require them to be effective, it just requires them to give it the old college try. And if they fail, oh well, they're not liable. And so those are the two arguments. And you could see how if these two arguments got legs, which they're getting, it's going to affect the entire country, not just Michigan.

[A]

Yeah, no doubt about it. Because every state that doesn't value election integrity, and quite frankly, let's be honest here, they want to use dirty voter rolls to the advantage of their political favorites. They're going to not only continue to do this, but they're going to, you know, expand the issue. And that becomes very critical in 2026. So I ask you that in this vein, do you believe that we are going to see without Covid, but who knows the kind of nonsense that we saw in 2020? Because the left sure seems desperate to me.

[B]

Yeah, look, the good news is I don't think we're ever going to see anything like we did in 2020. We didn't see it in 2024. We didn't see it in 2022. 2020 is going to go down in history as the year the guardrails were taken down. And all of the nonsense that occurred in violating state laws, suspending state laws, you know, sometimes courts signed off on that. But the point is I don't think we're going to see that again. The left pulled off an inside straight that year and too much effort has gone into making sure it never happens again.

[A]

What is the status of the SAVE Act? That certainly ties into the voter rolls. Yeah, the SAVE act, you know, the idea that the vast majority of Americans agree with is that you have to be a U.S. citizen to vote in a U.S. election. And it requires, you know, documented proof of that fact. It is, it is passed in the House, it has been stalled in the Senate. Do you know why and what is the status of the SAVE act right now as, as we get closer and closer to voting in this midterm?

[B]

Well, my understanding is it just doesn't have the votes in the Senate, that it just doesn't have the votes necessary to, to pass. And so, you know, I'm not, I'm not close enough to Senate issues on this that I can tell you why that is. But at least my understanding is it's just a game of math.

[A]

I am curious though. I've heard that there are some Republicans who do not support this basic constitutional issue, this basic election integrity issue, and that baffles me as well.

[C]

Will Washington's housing fixes backfire? The Watchdog on Wall street podcast with Chris Markowski. Every day, Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the economy and how it affects your wallet. Trump plans on purchasing billions in mortgage backed securities as well as allowing people to use retirement to make down payments. Does adding more cash bring down the price or add fuel to the fire? Whether it's happening in D.C. or down on Wall street, it's affecting you financially. Be informed. Check out the Watchdog on Wal podcast with Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcast.

[A]

What are the the other big issues that you will be fighting in court this year? I know you have sent out a number of warning letters and letters too. Your, your lead researcher Logan Churchill has written plenty of these saying hey, we can help you with this. As Secretary of state elect state, we can get you in compliance with election law, election integrity. What kind of issues are you delving into?

[B]

Yeah, so one is we're dealing with the race based redistricting in California. We have a lawsuit against California there where the new congressional maps are jerry rigging the system to create race districts. We're also looking at the secret ballot in Texas. We have a lawsuit being argued this week there as to whether you have a right to actually have a secret ballot. I know that sounds shocking, but it hangs in the balance. And then there's the whole voter roll problem. Around the country we continue to spend money and time to find dead people, people who moved away in the voter rolls and make the data available to election officials. It's something that is fixable and it's something that everybody should agree needs to be improved.

[A]

Where does that California issue stand? And I ask that in the main there are a lot of liberal states looking to, you know, rig their, their maps so that they can, they can grab more congressional seats. Where does your lawsuit stand? Where, where does the issue stand in general?

[B]

Yeah, it's in, it's in the hands of a federal court, three judge panel. Actually when you do a challenge like this, you get three federal judges and you know, where it stands is like we're in the middle of combat with litigation with California and hopefully, you know, we get some good news from the Supreme Court on another redistricting case shortly called Louisiana vs Calais, which PILF has a brief in there. And hopefully redistricting law moves in a better direction this calendar year.

[A]

You bet. Our guest today is Jay Christian Adams, president and general counsel for the Public Interest Legal foundation, talking election integrity. All the battles ahead in this critical midterm election year. Will a lot has changed since the election of 2020. We are seeing citizen only voting laws in place or amendments to constitutions. A growing movement on that front. Are we going to see the movement at least in these blue states that didn't change These issues. Are we going to see a bigger movement with liberal election offices working with far left non profits so to speak, so called nonpartisan election groups?

[B]

Yeah, great question and two things of note. First of all, PILF has been doing a deep dive into the personnel in a very blue states election offices and we've been harvesting resumes and we will eventually have a more comprehensive report. But I can tell you from a preliminary standpoint, it really makes it hard to have a lot of confidence in these election offices. What we're seeing, the other thing that's happening is states are passing these mini voting rights acts like New York did, Virginia did, California did to radicalize election law in these states. So like lock it down, like this is never changing. We're always going to be hyper progressive crazy. And a law a challenge to some of these voting rights acts on the state level really need to be made and we look forward to doing that.

[A]

Well, let's go into detail on some of those because what these politicians and these activist groups are calling voter rights acts is just a lot of times an end around to, you know, basic election integrity rules, basic integrity laws. What are they trying to do in some of these states?

[B]

Well, two things they do of note, they do a lot more than that. But I'll just give you two. One is they make race the center of state election law. In other words, you can bring these cases to demand race based districts. Like I want a black district for Congress, I want a, well Congress and even down to school board. And they dispense with the federal rule, they get rid of the federal rule which is really hard to satisfy. It's a really complicated way to do it and they make it really super easy. So what happens is you create all these race based districts under state law. That's the first thing. The second thing they do is they give state attorneys general, the bureaucrats in the state, basically the oversight power to review everything that the local jurisdictions do about elections. You know, if they want to change the time and place of the office being open, changing a polling place, everything that goes into state elections, these bureaucrats in Albany, Sacramento, they get to veto it all. And that allows manipulation by state employees in the process.

[A]

Well now wait a minute, I thought liberals, Democrats weren't all that keen on states rights. Seemed like it for a long time was always federal central authority. What changed there?

[B]

Well look, they know that in places like New York and Massachusetts and California and Minnesota, they love state power because they're always going to be in power. Right. Maryland, these are places where progressive is a culture and there's no competing political ideology. It's a one party state. And so why not be in favor of state power when you got the power?

[A]

Yeah, indeed. Here's the headline from the Associated Press. As we talk today, Democrats will spend millions to shift voter registration strategy ahead of the midterm elections. Kind of what we were talking about before. The Democratic National Committee will spend millions of dollars to cement control of voter registration efforts that have traditionally been entrusted to non profit advocacy groups and individual political campaigns. A shift that party leaders hope will increase their chances. What do you think about all of that?

[B]

Yeah, look, this is, this has been going on in small measure all around the country. I mean, one example of the fight was Texas where, pardon, these people went out to do voter registration and they were putting on bad registrations like the fake registrations. And Texas passed a law that said if you want to sign people up to vote, you have to go through training, you have to show, you know the law. And of course, what happens next. Texas got sued over this law, like, hey, this is suppression. Well, the plaintiffs lost, Texas won. But the same fight is taking place around the country where the registration process has basically been outsourced to activist groups.

[A]

And we've, we've gone down this road before where, you know, you have activist groups trying to, you know, trying to register voters, trying to register the kind of voter they want to turn out. But at one point, of course, they were deeply embedded in some of our election offices. You know, we saw that certainly in 2020, where you had, you know, a Democrat party operative in Wisconsin working inside Green Bay office, election office there and working alongside with the largest blue cities. Do you see that happening again? I know there have been some changes in the laws on that front.

[B]

Oh, for sure. I mean, look, some of these election offices in Richmond, or at least they were, are populated by volunteers parachuted in from activist leftist 501c3 groups to work inside the election offices. This is not a shocker. This is the standard operating procedure in a bunch of state capitals around the country. And I know people were shocked, like, well, who would ever do that for free? Well, they do it for free. They parachute people in.

[A]

That leads us to ballot harvesting. TILF has dealt with this in the past. How big a role will ballot harvesting play in the 2026 midterms?

[B]

Well, it depends on which state. A lot of states have curtailed it. A lot of states, it's a culture. Some states have made changes, like Mississippi has it. It is less of a problem than it was in the past.

[A]

You're hearing a lot, interestingly, from liberals from the Democrat party about 2026 and how the election might not just be fair because you have Donald Trump in office. You know, according to the left, he's the biggest threat to democracy out there. And certainly using terms like fascist and what have you, you know, they're talking about the R word here, Christian. They're saying, we're really worried that the 2026 midterms could be rigged by Trump and Republicans. Isn't that quite a change from when there were a lot of f, including yourself, who raised questions about certainly the many irregularities of 2020?

[B]

Yeah. I really sincerely hope, as we move forward as a country, that these sorts of claims become very out of fashion. It's like a slinky or. I don't know, I want to do some cultural fun here, like stuff that's no longer popular. Like some of the records I have at home, like the Bay City Rollers.

[A]

S A T U R D A Y my friend.

[B]

Right, right, right, right, right, right. The point is that I'm looking forward to the day that the confidence in the system is restored. And, you know, that it just. The pendulum doesn't swing back and forth between one and the other.

[A]

Yeah, I think that has changed. I think the polling shows it that there still is a good deal of distrust in the system, but people feel a lot better today than they did a few years back, and understandably so. How much does Congress have? Let me ask it straight here. How much culpability does Congress have in, you know, the failure to bring election integrity to the forefront?

[B]

Well, limited, because, remember, Congress has limited jurisdiction.

[A]

Sure.

[B]

That's how the founders wanted it. The Founders didn't want Congress involved in state elections. You know, there's a reason for that, too. It wasn't just they flipped a coin. Do we want Congress involved or not? Go ahead, Mr. Adams, flip the coin. No, it was because they knew centralized authority throughout human history brings disaster. It might start out as a really good idea. It might start out as really well attentioned, but it doesn't end up there. And the Founders knew that. So our Constitution has a presumption that the states are in charge. So I can. I can be a little bit grateful in a way that Congress hasn't addressed this. And states like Mississippi, Texas, Georgia. I'm just rattling off some great laws. Florida. Florida passed a lot of great stuff that these laws are being passed. And look, I know people listening in Minnesota or Massachusetts or Maine might be saying, what about us? I get it. But this is a decision made in 1787 and the founders are worried about not holding elections. And so they put the elections clause in the Constitution. We should use that power very sparingly indeed.

[A]

Are there some areas, though, in that Congress does have authority and they've kind of, you know, stepped aside or abdicated that authority?

[B]

Well, one area that the congressional authority is going to impact the country is this election day is election day case that's going Supreme Court. Congress passed a law and said ballots must be cast by election day. Okay, there you go. They've used that power under the elections clause to, to, to opine about what the law is. Now the question should they change the NVRA that doesn't require Americans to pay $30,000 to get the Alabama voter roll? Right. Should they change the NVRA that allows electronic records to be within the scope of what any American can get from an election office? Related to list maintenance, There are some areas around the edges where Congress could help the process where they've already made the decision. Decision to legislate.

[A]

Yeah. How is that going, by the way? Because PILF has been very instrumental in a number of states dealing with the high cost of obtaining voter rolls. If, if, let's be honest, if, if we can't see those voter rolls, it is very hard to, you know, talk about where election integrity stands. Hard to gauge that you have dealt with some very, very expensive cost associated with the voter rolls, both in red and, and blue states. Where does that stand right now and where do you see the fight ahead?

[B]

So some good news. PILF has brought and won an outcome in New Mexico where we got the outrageous fee dramatically reduced by thousands of dollars. And so you can get these records without paying a, you know, king's ransom. Now in New Mexico, I'll give you some bad news. Alabama. Alabama fought really hard so they didn't have to turn over electronic records and they got an 11 circuit decision saying so that they don't have to turn over electronic versions of like voter rolls. And so we said, okay, fine, you won this case called Greater Birmingham Ministries. By the way, we'll take the voter roll records in paper form the way you said that you prefer it. Well, guess what? They couldn't do it. They don't have enough paper to print. Right. And so that's a real bad place that I hope sorts out. But it's one of these examples where, you know, just because it's Alabama, just because it's New Mexico, don't think that the outcome is good.

[A]

Yeah, there are a lot of states, too. I remember, and I'm speaking as an investigative reporter, Wisconsin was an extremely expensive place. I remember trying, this was 15 plus years ago, trying to track dead voters on, on the voter rolls. And I said, well, sure, you can do that, but it's going to be $10,000 plus a pop. Well, that's very difficult because voter rolls are indeed subject to change. And if you got to spend $10,000 every couple of weeks to get read on voter rolls, that's going to price the, certainly the average citizen out of it.

[B]

Yeah. And there's something Congress can fix, too, if you're looking for something to fix. Wisconsin, by the way, the reason I say that is Wisconsin is one of six states exempted under the National Voter Registration act from transparency. And we just made arguments in the Seventh Circuit about this Court of Appeals. We had a similar case in Minnesota that just got argued in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals as to whether or not this exemption from transparency, election transparency under federal law, is valid. And we argue it isn't. We ought to be able to get the record cheap. But Wisconsin and Minnesota took the opposite argument. And by the way, so did the U.S. justice Department, I might add. They were in court opposing PILF on the question of cheap, transparent voter rolls.

[A]

Why, why on earth?

[B]

Ask them.

[A]

Yeah, I think we should. I think that, I think that the, the Trump campaign would certainly appreciate cheaper voter rolls, like every other campaign on the right and the left, you know, and, and obviously government watchdogs like yourself. We'll end with this, this final question for you as we look ahead at this critical midterm election year. How confident are you in election integrity in America as we get closer and closer to Election Day?

[B]

A whole lot more than I was years ago. I. A lot of progress has been made. There's so many good things happening in this space. I have confidence in my vote being counted, and I think most people hopefully share that view.

[A]

Very good, sir. Well, it's always good to check in with you. You've got your, your finger on the pulse of what's happening out there in election Integrity because you're dealing with it every day. And I am sure we will talk often this year.

[B]

All right, thank you for having me.

[A]

Absolutely. Anytime. Our guest today, Jay Christian Adams, president and general counsel for the Public Interest Legal foundation, about the election integrity battles ahead. 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.

[B]

You.