B (3:17)

Love, a show about the surprising things that love can make us do. More than 100 episodes available now on this Is Love.

A (3:28)

It is over.

B (3:31)

Natalie, Susan and Nate, thanks for coming on. On last week, President Trump posted on Truth Social there will be voter ID for the midterm elections, whether approved by Congress or not. Exclamation point. Voter impersonation is virtually. But polls show that 8 out of 10Americans support voter ID requirements. And emphasizing that some states don't require ID reinforces Trump's narrative that the midterms are rigged. So are you all more concerned with how Trump could weaponize this narrative in the lead up to Election Day itself or after the vote during the counting and certification process? Let's hear from you. First Susan, then Nate and then Natalie.

A (4:11)

Well, thank you so much, Kara. You know, it's great to be with you. You know, I think to me it's not an either question, unfortunately. Right. Already what's so striking about the 2026 midterms is Donald Trump's preemptive efforts to undermine it on such a broad front. Right. So you have the category that you're talking about, which is to demand changes essentially in the playing field, in the rules. This has begun, by the way, much earlier, much more persistently, much more specifically than Trump's previous efforts. We all know he's the only president in American history ever know seek to overturn the results of an election that he decisively lost. But it's much broader than that this time. So he's gone after it earlier. I would say the minimum scenario here for his interference in the election is to seek to undermine the confidence in it. Right. And the integrity and that sort of thing. But he's also made these very specific threats like the one that you just mentioned. If only that was even the extent of it. Right. The lawyers could just say this is absurd, it's not constitutional, it's not legal. But from my perspective, he's tried to change the rules, he's tried to change the playing field, literally to rewrite the maps across the country in places that are favorable to him. He's threatened state and local election officials, he's installed election deniers in key positions in the federal government. So we could go on. But I think the problem that I'm looking at is that here we are only in February and we're already in a scenario where it's not if, but when and how. Trump is going to seek to undermine our confidence in these elections, right?

B (5:50)

So he's preparing for it like an octopus or whatever. And because people have a long history of thinking elections are lifted, whether it's fictional or in American history. Nate?

D (6:01)

Well, in particular, the last decade, right. I mean, Donald Trump actually has said each of the elections, even the ones that he won, was marred by fraud. I mean, we tend to forget that even in 2016, he thought that that was a fraudulent election. And so I'm actually less concerned about this particular declaration because I do think the courts would stop him from doing that. But there's a lot of outside of that that are happening, whether it's DOJ requests for data from the states or whether it's possible messing around with the mail system, let alone threats as to what might happen on Election Day itself. So these kinds of kind of faux executive orders, the courts are going to be able to handle beforehand, but there's just a lot of uncertainty as to what might be happening in the run up to November.

B (6:45)

And Natalie?

C (6:46)

Sure. Thanks for having me on. For me, I have a little bit of a different perspective because I do administer elections. And, you know, from my point of view, in California, identification is required when you register, but not when you go to vote in person. We do go through a verification process, particularly with vote by mail. And so from for me and for many of my colleagues, if it's not on the books as law, then it's just sort of messaging. But, you know, that said, the messaging does have an effect on our voters. They get confused. Do I need id? Do I not need id? And all of the messaging that's out there that's coming from the administration can get confusing for people. Surveys show time and again that local elections officials are a trusted voice when it comes to election information. And so our focus is on making sure that people get the nonpartisan information that they need, because at the end of the day, people just want to vote.

B (7:54)

As an election official, do they feel scared or do they just confuse? You use the word confused specifically. Correct.

C (8:01)

I think, you know, some people do feel, you know, very concerned with what they see out there in the news. But, you know, I think for the most part, people are just seeking information, and they want to hear directly from the elections officials, what do I need? Am I registered? Where do I go to vote? And that's where we come in and tell people, hey, you know, if you want to vote, you are welcome to come here, make sure you're registered. You Update your registration if you need to. And you know when Election Day is right.

B (8:36)

Let's talk about three things the Trump administration has already done to undermine elections. One is seize the ballots in Georgia, demand that Republican states gerrymander to create more Republican leaning House districts, and demand voter data from states. Each of these have varying levels of success, but these are three very specific things in each area. Susan I want to start with the January FBI on the Fulton county election hub. It was based on an affidavit that was full of debunked claims about the 2020 elections. Nonetheless, a judge still signed it and it's leading to renewed calls in Georgia for the state to take over elections in Fulton County. Walk us through the raid's implications as we look towards the midterms.

A (9:14)

Yeah, Kara, I think you're right that it's not just it's both backward looking. Donald Trump is seeking to put sort of flesh on the bones of his debunked conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. That's a theme that runs through a lot. Second term is to actually rewrite the outcome of the 2020 election and sort of the fever dream, search for evidence to back up a claim. Though there is no evidence, though they counted those ballots multiple times, I believe three different times the ballots in Fulton county were actually counted, including once by hand. Nonetheless, there's this effort to kind of muddy the waters, to make people believe that there's some kind of an active question mark involving the 2020 election. So it's backward looking, but you're right to say that it's also forward looking. And I think that's the part, you know, where it's not entirely clear, at least to me yet, why it is the Trump administration is is seeking this voter data from all across the country, from state and local election officials. And you know, what they would intend to do with it when they do receive it. Are they looking towards a kind of mass purging of the voter rolls or something like that? You know, again, there's also, to me, this kind of chilling question of are we looking at a kind of sneak preview of a future? If you really wanted to call into question elections? I mean, a scary scenario that we've all heard talked about would be that the federal government, seizing upon some kind of pretext, seizes voting machines before elections are called. I do think that's one of Trump's takeaways from 2020 is you've got to stop it before they counted, before the votes are certified, and make it maybe impossible in key contested elections to have people confident in results so that, you know, if Congress, if the control of the House of Representatives is close or up in the air, you could actually see a scenario where they throw it into enough doubt, you know, that you can't reliably certify the outcome. So lots of scary scenarios that the raid in Fulton county suggested to all of us. And then just one final thing to throw out here, because I would love to know what everyone thinks about this, is the role of Tulsi Gabbard. My gosh, it's not. I think we've forgotten what a shocker that is to have the head of national intelligence in this country. That is a bright red line. You do not have intelligence officials whose job it is to collect foreign intelligence involved in potentially domestic intelligence gathering and domestic political operations.

B (11:54)

Oh, so people had forgotten about her.

A (11:56)

Yeah, that was a holy shit thing.

B (11:58)

Yeah. So let's. You want to address that, but I also want to turn to gerrymandering. You've actually worked with multiple states on their redistricting. The situation is fluid. For example, the Virginia Supreme Court just allowed a special election on redistricting in the state that could lead to four more seats for Democrats when we get to November. Which party is most likely to gain the advantage of redistricting?

D (12:16)

Well, I think the Republicans are going to gain a little bit, but not as much as they had hoped for when they started down this path. And so I think Gavin Newsom's decision to gerrymander California then sort of was the firing shot for the Democrats, so that they were willing to retaliate, which, frankly, was not. Not a predictable outcome. I mean, it wasn't sure that the Democrats would be able to get their act together, let alone that they'd be able to get it passed on these referendum ballots. And we'll see whether that happens in. In Virginia. But if you. If you sort of do the math, it looks like the. The Republicans may have gotten a few seats, but that's all with the caveat that we think that this is going to be a close election in the fall. There's the possibility that this whole strategy backfires on the Republicans because they've spread their supporters too thinly. Because that often happens when you. When you draw. Over the long term, though, I think there is reason to be concerned that now a pretty important norm has been broken that incumbent parties can redraw the lines to their advantage if they don't like the way the electoral winds are blowing. If I could say one thing on the voter matching Because I think Susan said, well, we don't know what they're trying to do with the data that they're gathering from the states that they're requesting. I think we do. And it's exactly what Susan suggested, which is that they're gonna use the data that they get from the states to match up against something like a DOGE or a DHS database to then allege that millions of people are ineligible that are on the rolls. And whether it's people who are out of state, people who have died, people who have moved. But it's one more sort of ingredient in the recipe to prove that the election is fraudulent even from the get go. And anyone who does these kinds of matchings, and Natalie can attest to this, there's always errors. In fact, there are usually more errors than there are positive identification of these false voters because people have the same names, people have the same birthday, kinds of things that get screwed up. And given the way that they've tried to sort of join together all these federal databases, you can easily see how that could be relevant. If they're trying to go after the

B (14:15)

voter rolls and they want the data to create a pretext for alleging fraud, that's really what's happening in order to create a case, even if it's specious at the start. Natalie, the Trump administration is suing 24 states for that data, including California. A lot of resistance to it. Explain how those records are kept for people to understand and maintained at a county level and tell us how they could be mis, if that was their goal, if they're even going to get them.

C (14:40)

So you all know that we do sell the voter roll and it has to be for a specified purpose. It needs to be for an election purpose, political, journalistic or governmental purpose. And if you can't articulate what your purpose is, then you don't get a copy of the voter roll. When you do receive one. It does not have key pieces of personal identifying information that we use for registration and that are used for more sophisticated list matching programs like eric.

B (15:12)

So very quickly, explain what ERIC is.

C (15:14)

ERIC is the Electronic Registration Information Center. It's a consortium of states that agree to share data and share resources for when voters do move across state lines. So you don't get an image of the signature, you do not get the last four of the Social Security. You don't get the driver's license, license number. And I think that's where the fight is. I believe that the administration wants that personal identifying information, and that is a recipe for Identity theft. We take it really seriously. We do not give out that information to anyone. And it is maintained in California anyway through an election management system that is connected to the statewide database. There is information that is flowing in between the registration rule changes daily. So when you get a voter roll, that is what people were registered at at that moment. It could be some people die the next day or become disqualified for some other reason. So Nate is absolutely right.

B (16:24)

And how could it be misused by the administration? Scenario. Give me one scenario.

C (16:30)

Well, I mean, it could be mistakenly. Like a voter's file could be mistakenly matched to someone who may be in what's known as a save database. You forgive me, I don't know the exact acronym. But the save database is kept by the federal government and it has a list of folks who are not citizens. There could be a situation where it erroneously sort of targets that person as being a non citizen.

D (17:00)

Can I just jump in on this whole question of matching? I wanna reiterate something Susan said at the outset, which is that you can't sort of look at each one of these steps in isolation as if this is a cause for some particular action that's gonna happen on election day. All of this is sort of spreading bets as how you might create doubt in the election, both going in and then afterwards. And so if the narrative that comes out of these voter matching efforts is that there's all these noncitizens that are on the rolls or dead people on the rolls, or that it's all screwed up, that that's the narrative you take in to cast out on the election, there will be, you know, court action if efforts are trying to purge people from the rolls, or if, if it leads to challenges in the polling places. But each one of these things that's happening, whether you're talking about Fulton county, you're talking about the matching, or other kinds of efforts with these executive orders, is all about creating the kind of ground for contesting the election beforehand.

A (17:56)

Right.

B (17:57)

Which is the point.

A (17:57)

Right?

B (18:00)

We'll be back in a minute. Support for this show comes from Framer. If you're a business owner, you know that a website should help your business grow. If updates to your.com feel harder than they should, Framer is the shortcut you've been looking for. Framer is a website builder that can transform your.com from a formality into a tool for growth. They've already helped thousands of businesses, from early stage Startups to Fortune 500s build better websites faster. Framer is an enterprise grade no code website. Builder used by teams at companies like Perplexity and Miro to move faster with real time collaboration, a robust CMS with everything you need for great CEO, and advanced analytics that include integrated A B testing. Your designers and marketers are empowered to build and maximize your.com from day one changes to your Framer site go live to the web in seconds with one click without help from engineering. So whether you want to launch a new site, test a few landing pages, or migrate your full.com framer has programs for startups, scale ups, and large enterprises that make going from idea to live site as easy and fast as possible. Learn how you can get more out of your.com from a framer specialist. Start building for free today@framer.com Kara for 30% off a Framer Pro annual plan. That's framer.com Cara for 30% off framer.com Cara rules and restrictions apply. Support for on with Kara Swisher comes from Rippling. No one likes running a bunch of disconnected tools to do simple tasks. It creates a ton of busy work, eating up your whole team's time and efficiency. Whether you're in it, HR or the finance team, your company's all in one platform should be able to to do it all well, rippling says. They're the platform that actually can do it all. It's a unified platform for global hr, payroll, IT and finance with Rippling, workflows that normally bounce across various tools and departments all just happen in one place automatically. Say an employee gets promoted or moves, Rippling can update payroll taxes, hand out new app permissions, ship a new laptop, issue a new corporate card, and assign required manager training all in one place without you having to do the legwork. With Rippling, you can run your entire hr, IT and finance operations as one, or pick and choose the products that best fill the gaps in your software stack. So if you or your company want to run a backbone of your business on one unified platform with people at the center, head to rippling.com Kara and sign up today. That's R-I-P-P-L-I-N-G.com Kara to sign up. Support for on with Kara Swisher comes from Groons. If you're looking for a health goal that you can actually stick to, you might want to check out Groons. Gruns is a simple daily habit that deliver real benefits with minimal effort. They're convenient, comprehensive formula packed into a snack pack of gummies a day. This isn't a multivitamin, a greens gummy or a prebiotic. It's all of those things and then some at a fraction of the price. And bonus, it tastes great. Grunes ingredients are backed by over 35,000 research publications, while generic multivitamins contain only seven to nine vitamins. Gruen have more than 20 vitamins and minerals and 60 ingredients which include nutrient dense and whole foods. That includes 6 grams of prebiotic fiber, which is three times the amount of dietary fiber compared to the leading greens powders and more than two cups of broccoli. It's a daily snack pack because you can't fit the amount of nutrients Grunds does into just one Gummy Plus. That makes it a fun treat to look forward to every day. Kick off the new year, right, and save up to 52% off. Off with the code karahruns co. That's code kara k a r a at groonsgruns co. So let's talk about the actual elections themselves then. One of the main fears for Democrats is that Trump will use ICE or National Guard to physically intimidate voters. Susan, what would that look like in practice and what's the likelihood that it'll happen and where?

A (22:11)

Well, that's right. You know, you're not necessarily gonna see this happening all over the country. One of the things about our elections over the last few decades, right, is the gradual winnowing down of competitive districts and states in, in the country. And I think that's one of the reason this, you know, incredible polarization is one of the reason why we're having this crisis in the first place. But it also means that if you want to go after the elections, you don't, you know, you have a more limited number of places where you need to do it. And in that respect, I thought it was really not a few weeks ago said that he was, you know, he talked about, he wanted to nationalize. He used that phrase, nationalize election in 15 states. Now, he didn't say what 15 states or, you know, where's that number coming from in recent years at the, at the presidential level, you know, we've shrunk down to basically six states or even three states that have made the difference in, in the last several presidential elections. So we all know what those states are that are our competitive states. Add a few more states where there are highly competitive congressional districts or Senate races, and maybe that's how Donald Trump got to 15. And again, to be clear, you know, the Constitution is silent on many things, but it's very not silent on the notion that it's the States that have the responsibility to regulate the time, place and manner of elections. So that's first of all. But that same week Trump was talking about nationalization, you also had Steve Bannon, you know, MAGA podcaster, former Trump, Trump strategists out there saying, you know, that let's be clear, let's send ICE right to the polling places, and we're not going to let Democrats steal this election. Again, if you combine these sort of threats to, in effect, you know, militarize polling places, and again, you wouldn't have to do it all over the country, but just in targeted places where there might be immigrant voters.

B (24:04)

What's the likelihood where it will happen that they have this plan? I mean, Steve Bannon says a lot of things, but.

A (24:10)

Exactly.

B (24:12)

So what's the likelihood? Do you.

C (24:13)

You see?

A (24:14)

Well, I mean, first of all, we have to say that Trump has already made it clear in how he has been deploying these ICE forces already. He's using them in Democratic cities and Democratic states as an instrument of sort of retribution, in effect, or punishment of his political enemies. So, you know, they would be looking to do this in places where there are large numbers of potential immigrant voters who might be scared off by the presence of isis. And, you know, Democratic run cities are often the places in the past that Donald Trump has targeted with his rhetoric. For example, Pennsylvania has been a key swing state. You know, in, in all of our recent elections. Donald Trump has been crying fraud in Philadelphia practically before anyone's voted there. Same thing in Detroit, in Michigan, which has a key Senate race on the ballot, as well as various contested House races this fall. So, again, I think we know the map of where they might, might go after pretty clearly.

D (25:17)

Can I have a note of optimism here?

B (25:19)

Yes. I'm going to ask you this because Trump, as he said, said he wants to nationalize election. Is that just legal bluster? But go ahead saying what you were going to say.

D (25:27)

Yes, well, he can't nationalize the elections, as Susan said. Right. The Constitution says that the state legislatures are the ones that are in charge of elections. And so he can't take over the elections. But, you know, the U.S. postal Service, for example, is always involved in elections. And so the federal government does have a role.

B (25:43)

So what else could he do? Sending troops to the polls, obviously, et cetera. What are the most effective legal.

D (25:49)

Well, I'm actually kind of optimistic that the number of seats that are going to be competitive in the fall will make it very difficult to sort of target particular areas. And so if it's A presidential election. We know what those seven battleground states are, but with this election, there are going to be up to 30 to 50, maybe even more competitive congressional races. So it's gonna be difficult to try target each one of the polling places. Not only is there a kind of geographic difficulty there, but there's also a temporal problem, which is that we don't just vote on election Day.

A (26:22)

Right.

D (26:22)

And so we're going to have weeks where people are going to be able to be voting, and those votes will then be banked in offices like Natalie's. And so I do think that it's easy to be concerned about these tweets because they're so unprecedented. But there's a lot of things that would make it very difficult for the federal government to try to take over local elections.

B (26:45)

So January 6th showed that Trump can use social media to summon his supporters. Obviously you can imagine him telling them to go protect the polling sites. And that sort of ambiguous language gives him a veneer of plausible deniability. Natalie, in 2020, a so called Trump train of around 300 people held a rally in the parking lot outside your office and blocked the ballot. Dropbox. Tell us what that was like and what you could do if similar situation occurred.

C (27:09)

Yeah, that was, I have to say, I felt a little intimidated myself. Just for a little bit of context, it was, I believe a Sunday afternoon and we had just sent out all the ballots by mail and I went to the office just to catch up on a couple of things. And it was relatively quiet until about 3:00'. Clock. And then I heard this rumble. And then outside I saw a bunch of cars and they had set up a merch booth with a bunch of Trump branded merchandise. There was a megaphone. So talking to people about who to vote for and free speech is something that elections officials value, but there are rules around doing so around a voting location. And we had a Dropbox that people wanted to use but felt they could not access one. They could not physically access it because there were of cars and blocking the way. But some people who would try to walk up to the Dropbox did not feel like they could. And that is a clear violation of the law. Normally I would go out to folks and say, there's a Dropbox here, can you please move your activities to 100ft or more away. But because I was alone and because there were so many people, it was a situation where I did not feel like I could go out there on my own and no one else was in the county building. So, you know, Moving forward, I think that we advertise where all of the locations are, and we work pretty closely with our local law enforcement to let them know here is where people vote. And a voting location does include an official vote by mail Dropbox. And the law reflects that you cannot do any electioneering activities or, you know, sort of any sort of political protests within that sort of hundred foot boundary.

B (29:24)

So imagine if the Trump train's activating on election day on a large scale.

C (29:28)

You know, I think that, you know, part of my job is not only to preserve the right to vote, but also preserve rights. And, you know, what I have told people time and again is, you know, your rights do not compete with each other. You have the right to political speech, just as you have the right to vote. But there are really good reasons why there is that buffer zone around voting, voting location. It's because this country's history of voter intimidation around the polls, it used to be way, way back in the day that you could electioneer right outside the door. And it turned out that, you know, sort of created some chaos around voting locations.

B (30:09)

So what is your preparation? You were nervous to go out and fix the problem. So people presumably weren't able to vote because if they wanted to. So people were being denied the right to vote.

A (30:19)

Right.

B (30:19)

And in that plan.

C (30:21)

Yeah, in that particular sit, what we had done is we had worked with the local Republican Party to make sure that those rallies did not occur in sort of key locations anymore.

B (30:34)

Could you stop them now?

C (30:36)

Well, yeah, I mean, we could sort of certainly try. It is a violation of the law to purposefully electioneer for the purpose of intimidating folks. And so we would just call the police and they would take care of it. I do not believe that there's a history of that happening in Marin County. Most kinds of electioneering are passive. It's like someone's campaign button or a shirt, and we politely say to the voter, can you just please remove that button while you are here or turn your shirt inside out. Some people have taken the extra step of just stripping. We don't encourage that, but it does allow folks to feel comfortable in the voting location and that they can vote calmly and free of intimidation.

B (31:30)

So if 2020 is any guide, Trump may do the most damage after the votes are cast. If armed federal agents showed up to an election administration site with a warrant and demand for ballots, like they did in Fulton county, talk about how to stop that, and how easy or hard would it be for the FBI to obtain another warrant? How do you deal with that?

A (31:51)

Susan you know, I've spoken with election experts, Cara, who say that the key is, you know, to be prepared in advance. I was even speaking with one election law expert who suggested that one approach some people will take this year is to get injunctions in advance to try to stop activity that they fear from the federal government. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I think heightened alert obviously has been achieved here. But I was really struck by. It was almost an offhand comment that Trump made a few weeks ago in an interview with the New York Times that suggested that we may be. Be once again overly limiting our imaginations as to what is possible here if you're dealing with people who are willing to just absolutely go completely outside of the lines of what we see as acceptable. And to that end, I was really kind of blown away. In his recent interview with the New York Times, Trump said, as an aside, oh, I really made a mistake in not ordering, ordering the federal government to seize election machines after the 2020 election. And, you know, this is essentially the almost martial law scenario that was being promoted by, you know, Sidney Powell and Michael Flynn and, you know, a lot of really just wild extremists who had Trump's ear in the aftermath of the 2020 election, but who, you know, were constrained because there were others, such as the White House counsel at the time, the attorney general at the time, who were indicating they wouldn't go along with these extreme measures. But how amazing that Trump is now saying out loud, yeah, I wish I had seized voting machines after 2020. I mean, imagine we all know the mayhem that ensued on January 6. Imagine the mayhem if there weren't any duly certified results from certain states. I mean, that's the thing, is that what Trump did in 2020 was extraordinary. And that was in a situation where there were no massive, you know, and in any way proof of fraud. There were no court decisions anywhere in the country saying, you know, questioning the overall results of state elections. December 14th, that's the key date when states had to certify the election results. In 2020, every single state met the debt deadline and certify the results. I think what Trump has learned, and somebody once compared him to me to like the velociraptors in Jurassic park, you know, learning how to open the door. What Trump seems to have learned from 2020 is seize the machines, stop it before those results get certified.

B (34:38)

Stop the count, in other words.

A (34:39)

Yeah.

B (34:39)

So, Natalie, in California, every voter, for people who don't know, is sent a mail in ballot, and the vote counting can Be slow. And that's to the advantage of Trump. Explain how vote counting is works in a state like California and explain your experience in 2020. Your team were counting the votes. Sure.

C (34:56)

So before I do that, I just want to sort of circle back on, on, on the voting equipment and, you know, so just seizure of election materials, that would be a serious problem. Election security includes a strict chain of custody on voting equipment and on ballots and, you know, sort of specific to, to this, you know, our, our county council to provide me and my staff with training on what to do if we see a warrant and what to look for. Because, I mean, frankly, I don't know about you, but I've watched a lot of cop shows and there may be a disconnect with what I understand a warrant could be and, you know, you know, what, what you see on television. So I want to be really clear that for me and my colleagues and likely for my peers across this country, if a warrant comes in, the first call is going to be to our attorneys and to sort of see what the scope is of what we are

B (36:02)

dealing with and not handing it over.

C (36:05)

Well, I mean, I want to stress that I'm an administrator, that I know the law. I can tell people what the law is, and in some cases, I can even enforce the law law. And with the warrant, we're sort of in a new world. But it would be very disruptive to the elections process to not have voting equipment. It would probably be an expensive problem, too. I cannot imagine that our Secretary of state would continue to allow us to use equipment that was seized and broke the chain of custody. But as you had stated, a lot of people vote by mail in California. Anywhere from 80 to 90% of the electorate that participates chooses to vote by mail. And that process does require added verification. So, you know, in this state, we give voters plenty of time to submit a ballot. We send them out 29 days prior to the election, after the election, if the voter chooses to submit that ballot by mail, then we basically have seven days to accept a timely postmarked ballot. And, you know, sometimes people forget to sign. The signature does not compare with what we have on file. So we need to reach out to the voter. And so one of the dynamics that's happening that we try to ameliorate through our messaging is please vote early. But what we see in California at least, is a lot of people are choosing to cast a ballot in an envelope by mail with an official Dropbox on election day, and then turn around and say, why haven't you counted this yet? It's because we go through the process of verifying that, you know, you haven't voted already, that, you know, the signature that you submit, like I said at the top, you know, people provide identification when they register, and they're often registering through the Department of Motor Vehicles. So when you sign, it's got to match what we have on file. And sometimes people draw stuff or they just put their initials or print. They don't sign. And it takes a lot of time to sometimes reach out to the voter.

B (38:26)

So let's assume the elections themselves are relatively uneventful. But while the counting is underway, Trump plays these cards we've just discussed. The FBI seizes the ballots. He stokes conspiracy theories, and his supporters make life hell for people counting the votes like Natalie. And Speaker Johnson refuses to seat elected members because of the results are illegitimate so that Republicans maintain control of the House. What happens then? Let's start with Nate, then Natalie, then Susan.

D (38:53)

All right, so technically what happens is that the Congress is impaneled on January 3rd. Each one of these folks comes with their sort of certificates of election, saying, here, I'm the person who won this. And so in the ordinary course of things, you would have certain people who would be sort of clearly members of Congress who would then vote if there's someone who objects, objects to one of the elections of each one of the other members of Congress. And so there have been times in our history where Congress, which is empowered under the Constitution to determine the qualifications of its members, then rejects the certificate of someone and says they can't be seated. The problem is we've never been in a situation where who controls Congress is actually in doubt. The first votes that are taken are to appoint the speakers. So we don't necessarily even have a speaker. And so we are walking, walking in totally new constitutional snow at that point. Right. This is a very different situation than even the January 6 uprising from five years ago. And so the question is whether, say, after the election, but before Congress is going to be seated, whether there's somehow a new law that would be passed that would try to deal with this issue of seating electors who allegedly were elected under fraudulent conditions, which they could do unless they.

B (40:10)

They don't have then, unless people resist it.

D (40:12)

Presumably, it's not clear what's going to happen if all these people show up and then there's an effort to, you know, say that there is no majority. The question is whether there will be new rules passed in the lame duck period that then would, you know, give Mike Johnson Unprecedented power. But, you know, generally speaking, the House, you know, disappears after the election, and then it has to reappear on January 3rd according to, you know, the processes have been in place for over 200 years. Right, but I mean, then we are in really dangerous territory, right? I mean, then we're talking about an election that was run, and then, you know, as in other parts of the world, you know, someone, you know, a leader then rejects the elections and then tries to cancel the vote.

A (40:56)

Right.

B (40:57)

What about you, Natalie? How do you look at this?

C (40:59)

I assume that folks up to this point who have doubts would have come to an office like mine. And I think, you know, one of the most important things that we do as elections officials is we open up the process to the public. You can see how we are processing ballots. You can see how many ballots that we have. Under the California Voter Bill of Rights, you have the right to ask questions about the elections process and receive answers from the elections official. And we spend a lot of time educating the public. So if there was some sort of doubt as to the election results, I would assume that we would have a high level of contact with our lawyers, with the Secretary of State. We may be asked to provide statements to the court or even testify as to our process. And this all would very likely happen once the election results would be certified. In California, we've got up to 30 days to certify. Many of us are done before then, but, yeah, we would have to continue to do what we always do, which is show our work.

D (42:18)

Well, let me just say that it's not as if the courts are going to be silent in this, right? I mean, in the event that there's an effort to try to undermine the vote. But you're gonna see action before the election, you'll see action on election day, and then you're gonna see actions afterwards in the event that there's an effort to undermine the vote. And the courts have been a kind of shining light in election litigation. In a bipartis, you've seen Trump appointed judges, Obama appointed judges have been sort of buttressing our democracy.

B (42:51)

Right. So speaking of China, just for people who don't know, Natalie has had mag observers demanding to stand closer, using binoculars, taking pictures of signatures, and borderline harassing you and voters, just to be clear. But Susan, go ahead on this question.

A (43:06)

Yeah, I mean, look, right, we're already in a dark place because we're trying to contemplate scenarios that have never happened, happened before in American history. So that's part of it, right. Is Just we're off the grid here. I think, again, certification is really key, as it was in 2020. It's also true. It's not just at the presidential level, but also House and Senate races have to be certified by the state. So we don't know the map yet of what would be contested. But the scenario we're talking about here is presumably where the House of Representatives, where control is very close. And so it would depend actually, to a certain extent on in what states are the. The races that are very close. Because if those are states that have Democratic governors and Democratic state election officials and Democratic legislatures, it's going to be very hard to do what the Trump administration might want to do if those are states that are more, you know, evenly divided or where there's Republican officials. Okay, then the question is what kind of Republican officials? We've seen, by the way, Republican officials in May, many states, even if they supported Trump at the national level, who have had more backbone than their national colleagues. Not just in Georgia in 2020, but also look at what happened in Indiana, where Republicans, very conservative Republicans, refused Trump's efforts to redo the district line. So it depends on the map, number one. Number two, I would just also point out that Mike Johnson is also already barely in control of the US House of Representatives. So to, to Nate's point about, you know, could you rewrite the rules before January 3, before the new Congress? I think that would already be very, very hard to do. In fact, there's actually a scenario where over the next few months, Mike Johnson and the Republicans lose control of the House of Representatives even before the November elections. He's down to one vote right now. Now, you know, in the natural process of a few hundred people, many of them older, you could have, you know, someone resigning Congress, a resignation and a death, and then all of a sudden, you're talking about Democrats even possibly being in control, or Republicans, you know, dumping Mike Johnson, who already doesn't have a lot of confidence among many of the members, and picking someone else. So, you know, Trump may want to do this.

B (45:31)

He doesn't have lot of juice, is what you're saying.

A (45:33)

Yeah.

B (45:35)

We'll be back in a minute.

A (45:49)

This episode is brought to you by On Investing, an original podcast from Charles Schwab. I'm Kathy Jones, Schwab's chief fixed income strategist.

B (45:57)

And I'm Liz Ann Saunders, Schwab's chief investment investment strategist.

A (46:00)

Between us, we have decades of experience studying the indicators that drive the economy and how they can have a direct

B (46:05)

impact on your investments.

A (46:07)

We know that investors have a lot of questions about the markets and the economy, and we're here to help. Join us each week as we explore questions like how do you evaluate corporate bonds? And what sectors of the stock market are outperforming?

B (46:19)

So Kathy will analyze what's happening in

A (46:21)

the bond market and at the Fed,

C (46:22)

and I'll give you our latest analysis

B (46:24)

of the equities market and the U.S. u.S. Economy.

A (46:27)

And we often interview prominent guests from across the world of investing and business. So download the latest episode and subscribe@schwab.com on investing or wherever you get your podcasts.

B (46:43)

Support for on with Kara Swisher comes from Square Running a business comes with its own set of stressors and a lot of them have to do with money. You have to figure out how your customers are going to pay you, but you also need to answer how you're going to pay your employees. Thankfully, Square is the one stop shop for all your money needs. From AI that answers your toughest business questions to tech that simplifies food orders, Square is built to help any business. Square AI brings all your business data to your fingertips. The Square dashboard will get you instant answers as charts and tables so you can download and even save so they can stay up to date, uncover answers, spot trends and make more confident business decisions fast. With Square AI plus, you'll have all the features you come to love from Square, including taking every payment type, managing your staff, payroll and schedules. Sell online or in person with synced inventory, or access your money instantly. With Square Checking. Square launched its most powerful tools yet, designed to give local businesses a competitive edge without the complexity. If you're ready to sell smarter, run your business more smoothly and stress less. Right now you can get 200 off square square hardware at square.com go onwithcara that's s Q-A-R-E.com g o/on with kara run your business smarter with Square get started today. It's time to level the up. I'm Robin Archdean and I light fires. I'm an executive founder, bestselling author, ultra marathoner, mother, proud life and I'm not done yet.

C (48:18)

Announcing Project Swagger, my new weekly podcast, your Transformation Toolkit.

B (48:25)

I'm going to cut through the noise and give you actionable takeaways each week

C (48:28)

in under 30 minutes.

B (48:30)

Elevate your hustle with routines, strategies and

C (48:32)

mindset shifts that I have pressure tested. I have burnt down this Beyonce candle

A (48:37)

like all the way to the bottom.

B (48:38)

We have been trying to manifest carbs are not. I probably have a piece of bread or a bagel with me at all

C (48:45)

times, and I am not exaggerating.

B (48:47)

Tune in on February 24 for episode one, building the skill of Self Talk.

C (48:53)

This is the foundation. Follow Project Swagger wherever you get your podcasts.

B (48:58)

Let's go. All right, let's wrap up by looking forward to election threats we'll be facing even after the midterms. The Supreme Court appears ready to gut Section two of the Voting Rights Act. The ruling could come too late for the states to redraw their districts in time for the midterms, but the consequences could be dire for Democrats in 2028 and future elections. Nate, game this out for us. What do the Democrats chances in the House look like without Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?

D (49:22)

Well, if. If the laws of political physics haven't been sort of completely unended in the last 10 years, the Democrats should win somewhere between 20 and 40 seats. Which is to say that with people having a pretty low view of the economy and low presidential approval, that, that, that. That should be the kind of expected shift in the House. Now, gerrymandering may blunt some of the natural forces that would lead to a Democratic takeover in a midterm election, but the amount of advantage that Republicans are getting is not that significant over the long term. When you're talking about the Decline of section 2, this has been the main piece of legislation that has provided for majority minority districts, for minority opportunity districts. So the black and Latino communities are able to get many more districts than they would otherwise. Because the Supreme Court has said that partisan gerrymandering doesn't raise any constitutional questions, it's statutes like the Voting Rights act that have been the bulwark that have prevented certain types of gerrymandering. I do think the Supreme Court is going to gut Section 2 of the VRA. I think the writing is on the wall. And so that means that we may see some more redistricting maybe after this election as well as. As we come into the 2030 round of redistricting.

B (50:39)

Right. So so far, election officials have played it pretty straight. Republicans like Secretary of State Brad Raffensper, who's running for governor, and Stephen Richard, the former Maricopa County Recorder, did their jobs in 2020 despite intense pressure from Trump and fellow Republicans. That might not always be the case. Natalie. If the election official wanted to corrupt an election, could they do it? Or would it be too obvious? Not that you would.

C (51:05)

No, no, never. And I mean, that's serious. We all do take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of our respective states. So breaking that oath is a serious issue. It would take a lot of planning. It would not go unnoticed, as we saw in the case, for example, with Tina Peters. Clearly got caught. And when I read a story about Tina Peters, it was just shocking to me that any one cohort would. Yes, yeah, Mesa County, Colorado. It's shocking to me that anyone would really go to that length. So, you know, we in California, we do have, I think, a very strong cohort that is constantly in contact. We are also in contact on a regular basis with Secretary of State, and we all talk about what the rules are. In a place like. Like California, you have a lot of local control over how elections are run. But we're all operating under the same laws, and we know what each other is doing. And I would venture to guess, because I'm like this, and I assume that my colleagues are the same way. If you're doing something that is way off base, we'll let you know, hey, what?

B (52:45)

Right. So you're saying it'd be very difficult for administration to purposely vote.

C (52:50)

Yeah, it would be extremely difficult for it to go unnoticed.

B (52:53)

Okay, so one of the ways it gets noticed is through the press. Trump's attacks on the press have been unrelenting, as I know. As Susan knows, many of the legacy media's owners are caving him. Just today, CBS is cutting off an interview with James Talarico because Brandon Carr's a giant jackass. But for a large portion of the electorate, facts don't seem to matter. James Madison wrote that a popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Very fancy quote, but absolutely holds up. Susan, how do you think about your role in the news media's role more broadly? Is it a prologue to a farce, a tragedy, or both?

A (53:33)

Yeah, look, Donald Trump himself in the 2024 election campaign said, if we don't have free speech, we don't have a country, period. And it's against that backdrop, a very cynical statement, really, when you consider the broad array of attacks that Trump has launched, not just on the integrity of the electoral process, but you could argue that it's going after, in a pretty systematic way, Americans, free speech rights that have been a signature move of this president. And, of course, that's all in the context. Context of maintaining power and using it. And I think that for Trump, he sees the stakes in this fall's election as Very significant to him. While some people will downplay it and say, well, what difference does it really make if Democrats take back the House? You can say that Donald Trump believes that it makes a big difference. He himself has repeatedly, almost obsessively, already begun talking about it. He says the Democrats will impeach him once again if they take back the House. That he understands there will be not only potential impeachment, but there will be oversight hearings, there will be Congress acting in a different way. It might cause him also to lose the hold over the Republicans who remain on Capitol Hill, who he's cowed.

B (54:46)

No, it's existential. It's clear he understands it's existential.

A (54:49)

Absolutely. So, number one, it's existential. Number two, it's the lies and disinformation that have fueled Donald Trump and his movement from the beginning. And of course, it's lies about an election that are at the heart of this presidency. The New York Times called Trump's second term the January 6th presidency. Will that means it's a story about lying about an election that is the foundational ideological belief of the people who are running this country right now. And so it's in that context that I think we have this responsibility as journalists. And again, Kara, I see that as a very nonpartisan thing, in the same way that our election officials need to have rules of the road that are not benefiting Democrats or Republicans, but that it's essentially a technocratic role in our democracy. Without it, we can't have confidence in it. I feel the same way about journalism. You know, reporting independently without fear or favor doesn't mean saying that there's an equivalence between our two parties or everything that comes out of the mouth of a candidate has to be weighed. In that context, it means being able to speak without fear or favor. And I worry that in too many communities around the country, including, sadly, the community you and I, I live in, the Washington, D.C. which has lost its reporting about state and local elections. You know, my husband spent more than a decade reporting for the Metro section of the Washington Post, including from Richmond, Virginia, the capital of Virginia. You know, we're losing our independent reporting about elections at exactly the moment. They're challenged by the people who are running the country. So, you know, obviously, the role of journalism is an important one to spotlight in terms of the integrity, integrity of the elections.

B (56:35)

So one of the things that's interesting is after they dumped this James Talarico interview on the broadcast network CBS acquiesced instantly. They put it on YouTube a second later, which I thought was hysterical. I was like, hey, have you heard of the Internet kids? In any case, my last question, there doesn't necessarily have to be anything dramatic like ICE agents patrolling voting sites or FBI agents taking ballots for Trump's prolonged assault on our democracy work. Between gerrymandering, voter roll purges, Idaho laws designed to suppress turnout, gutting of Voting Rights act, whatever Trump does around the midterms, we could see American democracy severely damaged by a thousand cuts. How do we avoid that spate? Let's hear from Susan, Nate and Natalie. You get the last word.

A (57:18)

Thanks, Kara. I mean, you know, look, that's the thing about us journalists, right? We don't have to. We're not as good at prescriptions as we are at analysis and describing the problem rather than fixing it. And, and I feel like that's the role for us to play in this democratic small D crisis that we have right now. I will say that in other countries that I've observed in reporting from Russia during the beginning of Vladimir Putin's tenure, in other countries around the world where you've experienced democratic small d rollbacks, it's the role of civil society coming together and journalism, in my view, independent journalism is part of civil society. Americans just aren't used to talking in those terms. We tend to actually buy very polarized, like there's Democrats and there's Republicans, and frankly, the interests of the Democratic Party, capital D isn't always the same as the interests of the democracy small D. And I feel like this is a moment for civil society to come together in a pretty widespread and sweeping way and not to wait until it's too late, because I think that that's what happened after Donald Trump was first sworn in last year, that you didn't see the kind of civil society coming together, the resistance, people understanding that they needed to act collectively and stand up collectively for democratic values. If that doesn't happen, a lot of the things that we're warning about in this podcast may come to pass.

B (58:50)

Okay, Nate.

D (58:51)

So a lot has to happen before we get to that apocalypse. I think that viewers and listeners need to understand that the courts have been quite active in particularly protecting the vote. And so while there's all kinds of executive orders and other kinds of threats that are being posed in this pre election period, you know, the system, you know, I remain optimistic that the system is going to hold. I think over the long run that there is damage that has now been done, which is that people have lost confidence in the election infrastructure. And so long as elites send that message that voters can't trust that their ballots will be counted, that I think that that long term distrust of the mechanics of American democracy is something to be concerned about. But as has been sort of the lesson over the last year, it's very difficult right now, about nine or ten months away from the election, to predict what we're going to be talking about then. And so what I tell my students is that I can't tell you that there's light at the end of the tunnel, but I can only tell you that they're going to be other tunnels.

B (59:57)

Okay, Natalie, sure.

C (60:00)

I appreciate the question because, I mean, I hear a lot of crazy stuff that could affect the work. And there's a lot of things that give me hope. And one of the big things is I'm just going to take it back to my colleagues both here in the state and in my office and across the the nation. We care very deeply about a free and fair elections process where voters get to participate if they choose to do so, and that we count ballots to the fullest extent of the law. Unfortunately, nowadays we've sort of become more like referees than anything else. But the level of planning and detail and care that we put into every single election, even in the face of. Of intense harassment, intimidation, even threats in some cases, we are dedicated to this process. And I would encourage anyone who has any questions to come into our office, look at our operations, see what we do. We all open up the process so people can have the opportunity to come and see the level of detail and verification that we pour into to every election. We care about getting it right. We're often forced to keep from getting too distracted by the politics of it all, and we'll continue to do so for this election and for all future elections.

B (61:45)

All right, thank you all so much. I really appreciate you for joining us. It's really important to talk about these issues in a relatively calm and extensive way so people understand there are things they could do. And, Natalie, I have to say I believe in democracy because of people like you who are doing this work despite all the. All the difficulties.

C (62:04)

Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

D (62:05)

Thanks for having me.

C (62:06)

Yeah.

A (62:06)

Thank you so much. It is heartening, Natalie. In an optimistic time, I'm like, go, Natalie.

B (62:13)

Absolutely. I appreciate it. Today's show was produced by Christian Castro Wisel, Michelle Aloy, Megan Burney and Kaelyn Lynn. Nishat Kurwa is Vox Media's executive producer of podcasts. Special thanks to Eamon Whalen and Madeleine laplante Dubey Our engineers are Fernando Arruda and Rick Kwan, and our theme music is by Trackademics. If you're already following the show, we get to keep our democracy. If not, we still get to keep our democracy. We're not backing down. And please, go vote. Go wherever. Listen to podcasts, search for for on with Kara Swisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to on with Kara Swisher from Podium Media, New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network, and us. We'll be back on Monday with more.