Will The SAVE America Act Survive The RINOs?

Summary

---

Federalist Radio Hour: "The Filibuster And The Fate Of The SAVE America Act"

Date: March 13, 2026
Host: Matt Kittle
Guest: Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Institute

---

Episode Overview

This episode focuses on the legislative battles and political maneuvering surrounding the SAVE America Act—a bill centered on voter ID and citizenship requirements for federal elections. Host Matt Kittle speaks with Hans von Spakovsky, a leading election law expert, about the obstacles facing the bill in the U.S. Senate, the dynamics of the filibuster, widespread claims of election lawfare against Trump allies, and the broader challenges to election integrity in the U.S.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Core Provisions and Popularity of the SAVE America Act

• The SAVE America Act requires:
  • Verification of citizenship to register to vote.
  • Photo ID to vote in U.S. elections.
• Strong public support: Kittle notes, "the vast majority of Americans, somewhere between 70 and 85%, support [these ideas]." (01:29)
• Hans points out these requirements are already in place for many government benefits and employment, questioning why similar verification is considered controversial for voting. (02:34)

2. Senate Obstacles and the Filibuster

• Hans clarifies that the major barrier is the Senate's 60-vote threshold due to the filibuster, noting:
  “The big problem they have is the filibuster rules. You know, it takes 60 votes not only to end debate on a bill once it gets to the floor, but just to get the bill to the floor.” (06:48)
• He details the Democratic Party’s nearly unanimous opposition and the influence of advocacy groups and funding sources against election integrity reforms. (05:07)
• Republicans generally support the Act, with only a handful of exceptions (Susan Collins, the Alaskan senators, and Mitch McConnell). (06:48)
• Discussion of "talking filibuster" and alternative strategies, like attaching the bill to “must-pass” appropriations, especially funding for the Department of Homeland Security. (09:55, 12:19)

3. Claims of Disenfranchisement and Media Messaging

• Hans disputes claims like Hillary Clinton’s assertion that "70 million women wouldn't be able to vote," calling it “absolutely absurd.” (12:51)
• He explains the SAVE Act’s built-in safeguards:
  “...they can sign an affidavit and provide whatever other documentation they have that shows they're a US citizen.” (12:52)
• Discussion of media amplification of Democratic talking points and public confusion. (13:54)

4. Evidence and Claims of Noncitizen Voting

• Hans: “If you do an easy, simple Google search…Virginia, Texas…removing thousands, thousands of aliens who were registered to vote.” (14:53)
• Other examples:
  • Michigan and Iowa both found illegal voting by noncitizens in 2024. (17:08)
  • Hans points out official resistance to transparency, such as Pennsylvania’s refusal to release numbers on noncitizen voter registration. (15:53)

5. Nonprofits’ Role in Voter Registration

• Kittle: “...an explosion of leftist so-called nonprofit groups, 501C3s that got inside election offices, election administration operations for the 2020 election.” (17:08)
• The panel connects this as a driver of “very dirty voter rolls” and claims of widespread noncitizen registration.

6. Trump’s Stance and Legislative Strategy

• Kittle notes Trump’s threat to veto other legislation until the SAVE Act passes.
• Hans’s view: The only viable strategy is attaching the bill to must-pass funding; changing the filibuster is both politically and procedurally unfeasible. (19:08–19:54)
• Warning against abolishing the filibuster: “...if we get rid of the filibuster at some point in the future, Democrats take over. That's exactly the kind of thing they'll do.” (19:55)

7. Broader Election Integrity and the MEGA Act

• Introduction of the proposed "MEGA Act" (Make Elections Great Again), which would expand on the SAVE Act’s provisions to enforce election roll accuracy, mandate interagency cooperation, and bolster public confidence. (24:34–27:24)
• Hans underscores the Supreme Court’s endorsement of voter ID to protect election integrity and confidence. (26:04)

8. Democratic Opposition and Claims of "Purging"

• Hans rebuts claims that reforms will “purge” legitimate voters, citing:
  • Procedures requiring investigation before removal.
  • Existing provisional ballot processes to protect mistakenly removed voters. (30:02)
• “This idea that all these eligible voters will be purged, won't be able to vote, that. That's just a falsehood once again put up by the left to oppose election reform efforts.” (32:05)

9. "Honor System" and Lack of Prosecution

• Criticism of states relying on an “honor system” for citizenship assertion during registration.
• Prosecution of noncitizen voting is rare:
  “Most election officials simply remove them from the rolls. They do not prosecute them.” (33:31)

10. Lawfare Against Trump Allies: The Wisconsin Case

• Kittle and Hans discuss Wisconsin’s prosecution of lawyer Jim Troupis, whom Hans calls “the go to guy for…recount law in this country.” (35:27)
• Hans: “...Jim Trooper is basically for doing his best as a lawyer, is being prosecuted for fraud. This is such a bogus case that the attorney General's own legal staff…[said] there had been no violation of Wisconsin state law. But call basically overrode. That got Jim Trubas indicted anyway.” (37:21)
• Concern over compromised judiciary: trial judge’s conduct and public attacks by state Supreme Court justices against Troupis and co-defendants. (37:21–41:48)
• On the implications: “...I think it'll be even worse than it was after the 2020 election. Democrats have shown...no compunction whatsoever about using the criminal justice system against their political opponents.” (43:14)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Hans von Spakovsky, on the filibuster:
  “The big problem they have is the filibuster rules. You know, it takes 60 votes not only to end debate on a bill...but just to get the bill to the floor.” (06:48)

• Matt Kittle, on claims of disenfranchisement:
  “Americans see through this, this nonsense. But...when you're constantly battered with the same message...you’re going to get some Americans...saying, oh, my goodness, am I gonna not be allowed to vote here?” (13:54)

• Hans von Spakovsky, on noncitizen voting:
  “If you do an easy, simple Google search...Virginia, Texas...removing thousands, thousands of aliens who were registered to vote.” (14:53)

• Hans von Spakovsky, on the lawfare against Trump allies:
  “...Jim Trooper is basically for doing his best as a lawyer, is being prosecuted for fraud...There’s nothing to this case other than a political vendetta.” (37:21)

• On the judiciary:
  “...the evidence about the Wisconsin judicial system is that it is biased, that it is unfair, that just judges and prosecutors there have no hesitation about using the system to go after members of the opposite political party.” (41:48)

---

Key Timestamps for Important Segments

• 01:27 — Introduction of guest Hans von Spakovsky and summary of the SAVE America Act
• 06:48 — Filibuster as the primary Senate barrier; Republican and Democratic positions
• 12:51 — Debunking claims of mass disenfranchisement by the SAVE Act
• 14:53 — Evidence and allegations of noncitizen voting
• 19:55 — Discussion on the filibuster’s future, risks of abolishing it
• 24:34 — Introduction and summary of the proposed MEGA Act
• 30:02 — Discussion of "purging" claims and provisional ballot safeguards
• 33:31 — Lack of prosecution for noncitizen voting violations
• 35:27 — Lawfare in Wisconsin: prosecution of Jim Troupis
• 41:48 — The state of Wisconsin’s judiciary and outlook on lawfare
• 43:14 — Predictions about escalating political lawfare if Democrats regain power

---

Tone and Language

The episode is characterized by a direct, urgent, and critical tone, especially regarding the perceived threats to election integrity and Republican legislative goals. Both speakers express frustration with Democratic strategies, judicial conduct, and media narratives. Hans von Spakovsky's voice is authoritative and rooted in legal expertise, while Matt Kittle adopts a more impassioned advocacy stance.

---

Conclusion

This Federalist Radio Hour episode delivers a thorough analysis of the legislative and legal challenges facing the SAVE America Act, the political importance of the filibuster, concerns about noncitizen voting and “dirty” voter rolls, and the ongoing legal battles against Trump allies. The conversation reflects deep skepticism toward Democratic intentions and highlights the ways in which procedural and legal tools are shaping the current and future integrity of American elections.

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 and as always, your experience, Sherpa, not today's quest for knowledge. As always, you can email the [e-mail] Follow us on XBRLST. 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 Hans von Spakowski, senior legal fellow in the new Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law and Advancing American Freedom. Hans is constitutional expert, an election law expert. We've talked to him many times and appreciated his expertise on the complicated world of election law. Hans joins us today to talk about the fate of the Save America act, the election integrity pitfalls ahead, and the Dem's ceaseless lawfare campaign against Trump's allies. Hans, thank you so much for joining us in this edition of the Federalist Radio Hour.

[B]

Well, Matt, thanks for inviting me back.

[A]

Absolutely. We're going to need every bit of your expertise to figure out the lay of the land here. On the Save America act, we have a House that has, the Republican controlled House, with very little help from Democrats on multiple occasions has passed a version of the Save America act, the current version of the Save America Act. It's two core principles, of course, involve verification, voter verific. You got to be a US Citizen to vote in US Elections to be registered and you got to show id, photo ID to vote in US Elections. That's a concept that the vast majority of Americans, somewhere between 70 and 85%, support. So why has it been so difficult after it moves from the House and it has on multiple occasions. Why is it so difficult at the Senate level at this point?

[B]

Well, one thing I want to point out, because you know, the Democrats are just talking about how outrageous it is and how this will, you know, supposedly disenfranchise all these Americans. I like to point out that those two requirements, proving your identity and proving your citizenship, are already the law. If, for example, you want to apply for welfare, public assistance, benefits, federal, all the federal programs require you to be a citizen and approve your identity. Not only that, but I would remind everybody that, Matt, you and me and everybody listening to this podcast, in order to get the job that you have that you use to support yourself and your family under federal law, what did you have to do to your prospective employer who was hiring you had to prove your identity and either your citizenship or the fact that you were an alien here legally and have a work permit. So the idea being advanced by Democrats is somehow outrageous, is just wrong. And it's hard to justify their opposition other than they like the fact that aliens are illegally registering and voting and enough of them are doing it that they could make the difference in a close election. There's really no other justification for it.

[A]

And clearly Americans know that. I mean, and, and that is with Democrats in a sustained campaign forever. You know, go look at the state battles over photo ID and you. They have been long and arduous to get to this point, but a lot of states have photo ID to vote and their residents love it, they support it, they back it. And more and more have come along over the last 20, 25 years in this country. But at every turn, Democrats have tried to create the narrative that this would be disenfranchising to millions of Americans, that this is Jim Crow 2.0, Chuck Schumer and crew like to call it. Americans aren't buying that, clearly. So why, why is it Democrats keep selling it other than the, you know, the idea that you just mentioned that they really want illegal aliens, non citizens to vote in our elections?

[B]

Well, the other problem that they have, and this is particularly true, for example with voter id, is that, look, Democratic leaders, you know, people like Chuck Schumer, they know that in fact their constituents, you know, majority of Democrats who vote for them don't agree with their stance on voter id. I mean, the polling overwhelmingly shows that a majority of Democrats and a majority of, of all Americans, no matter their ethnicity, including Hispanics and black Americans, all think voter ID is a good idea. But remember, huge amounts of money and support for the Democrats come from all of these big very rich foundations and very big advocacy groups. Everyone from the League of Women Voters, which long ago became a Democratic supporting organization, to other organizations like the naacp. They are adamantly opposed to voter ID or proof of citizenship. And Democratic leadership doesn't want to upset basically the source of the money that helps them get elected. And that's the dichotomy they face you

[A]

bad follow the money is always the guiding principle for all of this stuff, if you have a question about it. Okay, so we know the Democrats, we know their resistance and their resistance movement. So what about Republicans who say that they're all about election integrity but don't seem to want to work for that in the U.S. senate?

[B]

Well, the thing is, you know, I was just looking at this the other day, and overwhelmingly the Republicans support the SAVE Act. There's only a handful of exceptions. You know, Susan Collins of Maine, the two supposedly Republican senators from Alaska, Mitch McConnell also has voiced opposition to it. You know, that's four out of 53. I wish that wasn't so, but that's, that's pretty good. You know, it's hard often on many issues to find basically, you know, 95, 96% of the Republicans in the Senate agreeing on it. Look, the big problem they have is the filibuster rules. You know, it takes 60 votes not only to end debate on a bill once it gets to the floor, but just to get the bill to the floor. A lot of people are ignoring the fact that in order to have a bill like the SAVE act get to the floor of the Senate where everything can start going, you have to first make a motion to bring the bill to the floor. That is a debatable motion and it obviously can be filibustered. So overcoming those 60 votes is, is a very, very difficult. And in this case, this is one of those issues where the Democrats are just uniformly party line against anything that would increase the integrity and security of the election process.

[A]

Yeah, now they got Fetterman back. Fetterman was all on board. John Fetterman from Pennsylvania, who has been the only truly voice of reason coming out of that party over the last year plus in this country, is the only one who doesn't suffer a severe bout of Trump derangement syndrome. He was all in line for secur our elections through the Save America Act. Now he's decided that it's not going to happen. My understanding is Susan Collins actually came out in support of this, so they would have her. At least the last that I heard, it's the Murkowskis and the, the, the Mitch McConnells of the world. And I realize there is, there is that threshold, that, that filibuster threshold, 60 votes is very difficult. A solid majority in the Senate. That said, there have been ways presented to go around that 60 vote threshold. The talking filibuster is, is that way. What do you think about that? And what do you think about John Th's resistance to that? Based, he says, on, on the numbers, on, on the math.

[B]

Well, look, I can't argue with him on the numbers. He says he doesn't have the votes to get it to the floor to even start the debate, much less get a debate going with a talking filibuster. And look, I want this bill to pass, but it's hard to argue with the fact it doesn't have the numbers. I really think one of the only ways they could get this through is if they could somehow attach it to one of those must pass bills that Congress has usually connected with the budget, with appropriations. That so far hasn't been done. And even there, as you know, look, we really need to fund the Department of Homeland Security, given that we are in an armed conflict abroad and we're now starting to see a series of terrorist attacks inside the United States. And yet even with those circumstances, the Democrats are refusing to fund the Department of Homeland Security. I mean, that is such an extreme position that it's very hard to fight about that, to fight against timing.

[A]

Yeah. It should come as no surprise, though, for anybody who's been paying attention, this is the same party that has launched attacks, insurrections, truly. If January 6, 2021 was an insurrection, what we have seen, attacks on federal installations and federal employees, is definitely an insurrection. And it continues to go on because they don't like ICE and they don't like federal law enforcement of federal immigran immigration laws. And unfortunately, sadly, that's where we're at in America. So perhaps it's no surprise, do you think there clearly is mounting pressure for some deal to be set. How likely do you think it is that Republicans would smartly use this in a reconciliation way to get around the cloture 60 vote cloture rule to fund DHS, which needs to be done, fully fund DHS and to move the Save America act through?

[B]

I think politically it would be very smart for them to do that. And I think folks like Mike Lee and Ted Cruz realize that. I mean, yeah, it's politically smart. It's also something that's needed to secure our elections. Look, one point I want to make, if I may, is that, you know, the biggest claim that's being made by the opposition of this is that. And you saw the Hillary Clinton claim. Claimed, made this absolutely absurd claim that 70 million women wouldn't be able to vote.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

That is just so dumb. That is just so idiotic. People need to understand that the SAVE act has this whole process that it requires states to put in so that if someone doesn't have the most, you know, easy, obvious ways of proving citizenship, anything from a passport to a real id, a driver's license to a birth certificate, they've got to set up a process for folks where they can sign an affidavit and provide whatever other documentation they have that shows they're a US citizen. And you know, the idea that married women aren't going to be able to do that. Well, I guess she must claim that 70 million married women are unable to get on airplanes right across the United States because somehow their new married name doesn't match their original driver's license. I mean, that is just a ridiculous claim.

[A]

Or check out a book from the library, Hans. Check out a book from the library. Just, you know, or buy a pack of cigarettes if, if that married woman is a smoker or booze or whatever. Again, Americans see through this, this nonsense. But, you know, when you're constantly battered with the same message in the accomplice, media goes right along with it. Well, then, you know, you're going to get some Americans who aren't really paying attention saying, oh, my goodness, am I, am I, am I gonna not be allowed to vote here? Because the Democrats are telling me that over and over again. And the, you know, corporate media is, is pushing that message out as well.

[B]

Yeah. The other thing about this I think it's important to note is, you know, folks on the left kept saying, oh, this never happens. You know, aliens, they don't register, they don't vote. So there's no need for that. That, again, is just not true.

[A]

Right.

[B]

If you do an easy, simple Google search, you'll find, for example, that before the 24 election, Virginia, Texas, once they started checking their DMV records, we're finding folks who had got, you know, they were here legally, for example, but they had gotten driver's licenses and they'd register to vote. They were removing thousands, thousands of aliens who were registered to vote. And we've just very recently, I mean, the U.S. attorney just arrested and indicted an illegal alien who's been voting in every presidential election since 2008 in Philadelphia. Right. That. That's how bad the system is, and it shows how it doesn't catch individuals. Of course, that should be no surprise because as you, as you'll recall, a couple of years ago, the Secretary of State of Pennsylvania was forced to resign after it was revealed that because of a glitch in the state's DMV system, For the last 20 years, they've been registering aliens to vote. And ever since then, they've been resisting revealing how many aliens actually got registered and how many have voted. I mean, the estimates are, could be anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000. But we don't know because Pennsylvania has been fighting fiercely in court to avoid revealing the numbers. That in itself tells you a lot.

[C]

1800 companies are in the amazing tariff refund race. 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. $130 billion was taken in tariffs because those tariffs were called off. Companies want their money back. Will they get it? Whether it's happening in D.C. or down on Wall street, it's affecting you financially. Be informed. Check out the Watchdog on Wall street podcast with Chris Murkowski on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.

[A]

Absolutely it does. And here's the the bigger problem that's created a bigger problem. You know you've been tracking this for a long time. There was an explosion of leftist so called nonprofit groups, 501C3s that got inside election offices, election administration operations for the 2020 election. They've been planning it for a very long time. They were able to do that. And we are seeing the fruits of those labors through very dirty voter rolls, particularly in, in blue states that where you have these organizations that had registered illegal aliens to vote. We, we've, we've seen thousands upon thousands on these voter rolls. And as you mentioned, we have states, Michigan that they as at least 15, 16 illegal immigrants voted in the 2024 election. Iowa, 15 illegal immigrants they found voted in the last presidential election. This is a reality and it cannot be divorced from election integrity. It's gotten worse and worse. Let me ask you this though. Do you think that the president, President Trump has, is obviously very serious about this, his top priority. He's threatened he won't sign basically any other legislation until this Save America act goes to his desk it passes the Congress. But do you think his recent calls to add other things including non election related reforms to this bill, is that a motivator to to pass this bill or is it distraction?

[B]

I don't know. See, it's unclear what he wants to have added in I, I going back to what we were talking about before, I really think the only way they can get this past the almost completely uniform Democratic opposition is to attach it to some must, must pass appropriations bill. I really think that's the only way they can get it through because I just don't think they can overcome the filibuster threat in the Senate. And look, I know some people have said well we should change the filibuster rule and get rid of it. Well that's difficult to do because changing the rules requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Democrats aren't going to agree to that. Others have said well exercise the nuclear option the way Harry Reid did to change the interpretation of a rule without having that vote. But look, Republicans need to think about the future and the fact that at some point they will be in the minority again. That just guarantee that's the way politics work. And it was only the filibuster actually led by Mitch McConnell that stop probably the worst election bill that could have passed in the entire history of the United States back when Nancy Pelosi in The House passed HR1, a bill that would have nationalized our elections and do things like ban all voter ID laws across the country. And if we get rid of the filibuster at some point in the future, Democrats take over. That's exactly the kind of thing they'll do.

[A]

Our guest today is Hans von Spakowski, senior legal fellow in the new Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law at Advancing American Freedom. We're talking today about the fate of the Save America act, the election integrity pitfalls ahead, and of course, the Democrats ceaseless lawfare campaign against Trump's allies and where they will go from here if they seize power again. And that's really at the the core of the Save America act, because we saw what happened in 2020. The editor in chief of this news organization, Molly Hemingway, wrote a fantastic book called Rigged, because that's exactly what the 2020 election was. It was rigged, and not in the way that that some insist that it was. But there were all kinds of things that were shoved in under the COVID of COVID in 2020 that were absolute violation of election law. There's no doubt about that. Again, we saw these leftist organizations embedded in election administration offices in some of the biggest, deepest bluest counties in the country. It was a rigged election. So I'm curious, after having the left and their Trump derangement syndrome for four years up to that point, desperate to obviously to remove this guy from office. They are even more desperate now as we get to these critical midterms. How many shenanigans do you expect from the left in this upcoming election year, given their absolute derangement and desperation? And how much of that could be prevented by passage of the SAVE Act?

[B]

Well, as you know, there's always a huge voter registration drive in an election year, and that particularly is already started going on this year. So, I mean, the SAVE act would help prevent aliens from registering and voting. And I know folks are always talking about illegal aliens, but the problem is both aliens who are here legally and aliens who are here illegally easily registering and vote because we have such an honor system. So, yeah, I mean, that's potentially a problem. We've also have the issue, unfortunately of judges, mostly liberal appointees, federal judges, liberal appointees from Biden and Obama, who have been ruling against the Justice Department. The Justice Department has been trying to get state voter registration lists, particularly from blue states, so that they can see whether those lists are being accurately maintained. I think they have a right to that under various federal statutes. But you have judges ruling against them, saying they're not entitled to it. Very bizarre rulings. Because as you well know, almost anybody else can get these lists, party organizations, candidates buy these lists from the states. And yet the judges are saying that the Justice Department, which is tasked by federal law with enforcing and making sure that those lists are accurate, can't. Can't get those lists. I mean, it's really just another sign of how bad the federal courts have gotten. And that also is an issue in this upcoming election.

[A]

Polling is interesting on this because it takes us into a broader bill that I know you very much support. It's called the Mega Act. Make Elections Great again. As I note in a piece on the Save America act published at the Federalist today, you know, this, this MEGA act would go well beyond in terms of election integrity reform. What we're seeing from this very humble ask in the Save America act, you know, it includes all the things that we have seen wrong, inherently wrong. You noted at a roundtable discussion last month about this bill. This would fix so many of the things that not only plague our election systems with all kinds of security and integrity issues, it would do so much to restore flagging confidence in our elections. New polling out suggests that just 60% of Americans feel confident that votes nationally will be counted accurately and fairly in the 2026 election. That's down from 77%, as I understand it, from the 2024 presidential election. We've got to do something, don't we, about confidence in our elections?

[B]

Yeah. Yeah, we do. And you know, the Supreme US Supreme Court itself noted the importance of public confidence back in 2008 when it upheld one of the first photo ID law requirements for voting in the country. Indiana passed that law. They were, of course, sued by the ACLU and all these liberal groups. Supreme Court said that there's nothing wrong with requiring a photo ID to vote, that it's perfectly constitutional. And they pointed at two things. One, the fact that the US Has a long history, unfortunately, of election fraud. But second, they said that that kind of a requirement is very important to maintaining public confidence in the election process, because if people aren't confident, they're not going to turn out to vote. Not only that but it means that the winners of disputed elections, they don't really have the mandate that they would normally get for winning an election to actually engage in elected office and you know, work on the kind of policy solutions we need for our public policy problems. So yeah, maintaining and public confidence is extremely important.

[A]

Yeah, I mean that it has been battered, of course, over the last several years in this country. What, what would the, the MEGA act do? And if we can't get a, a basic election reform bill passed in the Senate, how likely is it this manifold. Very good but you know, very involved election reform bill gets passed and signed into law?

[B]

Well, there's no question in my mind that if we, it'll pass in the House, which is controlled by Republicans, even with a very narrow vote. But again, they have extreme problems passing it in the Senate because Democrats now, for really three decades have been adamantly against almost anything that increases the security election process, including maintaining the accuracy of voter registration rolls. Again, this was demonstrated. You know, I talked about HR1, the Nancy Pelosi bill the Democrats passed. It had provisions in it to restrict the ability of states to take ineligible voters, you know, people who've moved away, et cetera, off the voter rolls. In essence, if, if that bill had become law, it would have been almost impossible for states to remove ineligible voters from their voter rolls. And that, yet that was what they thought was a good idea. And again, it's just another example. I mean, the MEGA act, it incorporates the SAVE act, but then it has a whole bunch of provisions on increasing the accuracy of voter rolls, for example, directing that all federal agencies, not just the Department of Homeland Security, which has an alien database, but all federal agencies that have potentially relevant information, such as the Social Security Administration, would have to cooperate with state efforts to verify both identity and citizenship and residents of people registering to vote. Right now, you know that's not happening.

[A]

Well, what on earth is the justification for that not happening? And it's really coming from, once again, the Democrats obstructionist to any election integrity reform.

[B]

Well, you know, they claim, oh, this will lead to the purging. They like that word, the purging of legitimate voters because of mistakes and databases. Well, there's two problems with that. First of all, no state election officials automatically remove somebody from the rolls when they get some kind of evidence that perhaps, for example, they don't actually live in the state. When they get that kind of evidence, they individually investigate that case to determine whether that information is correct. Same thing if they get information from the Department of Homeland Security that someone may not be a U.S. citizen. They don't automatically remove them. They investigate first. And the second thing is, is there is not a single individual in this country who, if they are an eligible voter and they were registered, if they are mistakenly, through an error removed by election officials, every single one of those people will be able to vote. Why? Because in 2002, in the help America Vote Act, Congress passed a provision that requires every state to put in a procedure for provisional ballots. That means that if you show up at your polling place and the polling people say, oh, you're not registered to vote because they made a mistake, they removed you, all you have to do is assert, oh, no, no, I'm an eligible voter, I register to vote. They have to hand you a ballot. Yeah, it's called a provisional ballot. You get to vote it. Election officials then by law are obligated to investigate. And if in fact they find they made the mistake, they have to count your vote. So this idea that all these eligible voters will be purged, won't be able to vote, that. That's just a falsehood once again put up by the left to oppose election reform efforts.

[A]

Indeed. And it's interesting to me, this constant fight about that, because they clearly don't want the investigation. It's the same thing with the honor system they keep talking about is some kind of real defense against non citizens voting in our elections. Well, we already have laws on the books. It's a felony to lie about your citizenship when you register. Register. Whoever gets caught doing that, Hans?

[B]

Well, it's not only that people don't get caught. I mean, when we say honor system, people need to understand what we're talking about is when you register to vote. Yeah. It asks you whether a US citizen or not. But if you are an alien and you check the box and say, up, I'm a citizen. The vast majority states they do absolutely nothing to verify that. And that's why so many aliens are able to successfully get registered and, and, and to vote. And, and that that is the whole problem right there is that we, we have that kind of an honor system that doesn't actually do any checking to verify that really you really are a US Citizen.

[A]

We have an honor system for people whose first act of entering the country was to break the law. Right. You, you make that make sense? I guess.

[B]

But yeah. Plus, look, it's overwhelmingly true that even when states discover that someone is not a US citizen, most election officials simply remove them from the rolls. They do not prosecute them. I know that from both personal experience as a county election official. And I've seen that in many states who, you know, they'll, they'll put out press releases saying, oh, we removed, you know, this many aliens from our voter rolls after discovering that they were not US Citizens. But then when you go to them and say, well, do you turn this over to prosecutors? They'll say no. And even if they did turn it over to prosecutors, that you often find that the prosecutors don't do anything about it.

[A]

Not a priority. It hasn't really ever been in these. And, and, and part of that, a big part of that is das have plenty to worry about and they don't see this as a priority. And that's the problem. I know this, this probably never happened, but I want to get your thoughts on this. Do you think it should be disqualifying to run for office if you are this Adam, adamantly against protecting our elections?

[B]

Well, you know, giving, giving government bodies the ability to disqualify you from running for office unfortunately could open a Pandora's box. I do think if that's your public stand, people should not vote for you. But extending and giving government officials the ability to disqualify people running for office, to me that's not a good idea.

[A]

Yeah, I understand, I understand the pitfalls of that just as I understand the pitfalls of nuking the filibuster and what that means for the future. But it comes from a point of frustration. I think a lot of Americans share that frustration with, you know, a party that simply does not really want free and fair elections. Now, to close with a great piece you wrote this week in the Federalist. It is about the weaponizing of justice was extremely vile and, and continues to be the lawfare that has gone on to target allies of the President Trump after his first term. And he wrote in particular about a story that I'm, I'm very familiar with. I haven't investigated this for some time. And it is the state of Wisconsin's attack under Democrat Attorney General Josh Call on Jim Troupas who is by any measure a well respected attorney. He is an expert on recount law in this country. The go to guy for that. For years he was a Dane county judge and held in nationally high esteem. And he has been dragged through the mud and over the hot coals in what I think is nothing less than a political witch hunt to try to go after Donald Trump by proxy. Tell us a little bit about that case, where it stands and why you believe it should end.

[B]

Now, look, he's being criminally prosecuted for fraud. Why? Well, because he did his job as a lawyer representing Donald Trump in the 2020 election when there was an election challenge, an election challenge went all the way to the state Supreme Court. Now Biden won that, but it was a 4 to 3 vote, which indicates that it was not a frivolous challenge in the recount that was going on in this state. And yet Jim Trooper is basically for doing his best as a lawyer, is being prosecuted for fraud. This is such a bogus case that the attorney General's own legal staff, when they were consulted about it, they present a legal opinion saying there had been no violation of Wisconsin state law. But call basically overrode. That got Jim Trubas indicted anyway. And there's nothing to this case other than a political vendetta. And that has been made worse by the fact that there's now evidence that the trial judge in the case who issued an order refusing to dismiss the criminal prosecution, and there's evidence that he didn't even draft that order, that it may have been drafted by another judge, a retired judge, all of which is a huge violation of the judicial code of conduct. And that trial judge, when confronted with this, has refused to do anything about it, leading to Troopas appealing the case. Your court of the court of appeals in Wisconsin refused to do anything about it. It, it's now before the state Supreme Court. And even there he has a problem because you have two justices on that court, including the Chief justice, who have acted in a way that is outrageous, attacking Troopas character, qualifications and credentials publicly, podcasts, press releases. I don't know if you realize it, Matt, but that's the kind of action if I as a lawyer did that attacked the credentials, qualifications, character of a judge, I could be disciplined by my state bar association. And yet these two justices on the Supreme Court have acted in a way that really should disqualify them from actually being on that court. And that's who his appeal is up before.

[A]

Now they're attorneys, they're jurist. Why are there any repercussions for them? And their conduct, which is, is absolutely abhorrent. If you read some of the, the politically charged statements that these two justices have made to taint the, the waters of and they, they refuse to recuse themselves. And that's really what this comes down to, is that Jim Troop is, and I should mention it's not just Jim Troopas, there are two others as well, also an attorney who has been practicing campaign law for a long time, Ken Chesabro and You know that, that Ken Chesebro was involved in what the left keeps calling the fake elector, falsely calling it that alternate all alternate elector. He advised the Gore campaign to follow this strategy. The Gore campaign was very much considering it, but decided against it in the the 2000 election. And they did so. Even the liberal justices of the Supreme Court said they did so at their own political peril. So this can be seen as nothing but a politically charged prosecution to three individuals who clearly are caught up in this very politically motivated witch hunt that is going on right now. Where do you see this ending? Is there a way that these three men avoid being convicted of these insane charges?

[B]

Well, it's only if the two Supreme Court justices who have acted in what I consider to be an unethical and unprofessional manner, if they actually recuse themselves or if they finally do the right thing. And unfortunately the evidence about the Wisconsin judicial system is that it is biased, that it is unfair, that just judges and prosecutors there have no hesitation about using the system to go after members of the opposite political party. So, you know, maybe I'm being cynical, but I have my doubts that this tremendous wrong is going to be rectified.

[A]

I don't think you're cynical at all about this. Need one need only look at the notorious infamous John Doe investigations of the previous decade to know just what the, the leftist in Wisconsin, including the judicial system, is capable of doing. Final question for you. Appreciate all of your time and your expertise today, but given what is going on in Wisconsin, given the desperation of the Democrat party in this country, if they regain power, where do you see lawfare going in America after 2026?

[B]

Oh, I think it'll be even worse than it was after the 2020 election. Democrats have shown that they have no regrets, no compunction whatsoever about using the criminal justice system against their political opponents. And I would expect that star chambers Soviet style show trials will be implemented in as many blue states as possible and blue cities as possible to go after Republicans who they oppose. And that's going to be the final straw. I'm sorry, sorry, Final nail in corrupting our judicial system which already is having problems because of the Romanian radical liberal left wing judges appointed by Joe Biden and Barack Obama who are not complying with the law, twisting the law, breaking the law for political purposes.

[A]

Yeah, we've seen it time and time again. Just look at the past to know what the future holds. Thanks to my guest today, Hans von Spakowski, senior legal fellow in the new Edwin Meese III Institute. For the rule of law at advancing American freedom. 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]

I heard the faint voice of reason and then it faded away.