Texas vs. The World + the Campaign's Excellent Case in Georgia with Attorney Kelly Shackelford

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Charlie Kirk Show

Episode: Texas vs. The World + The Campaign's Excellent Case in Georgia with Attorney Kelly Shackelford
Date: December 9, 2020
Host: Charlie Kirk
Guest: Kelly Shackelford, President of First Liberty Institute

---

Overview

In this episode, Charlie Kirk engages attorney Kelly Shackelford in a wide-ranging discussion on two major legal flashpoints of late 2020: the Texas lawsuit challenging the 2020 presidential election results in multiple states and ongoing high-profile religious liberty cases arising from COVID-19 restrictions. The conversation provides detailed insights into legal processes at the Supreme Court, the constitutionality of state actions during elections, and the rising stakes for constitutional freedoms in America.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Introduction to Kelly Shackelford and First Liberty Institute

• [03:19] Kelly shares the mission of First Liberty as the largest legal nonprofit exclusively dedicated to defending religious freedom cases in the U.S.
• Quote:

  “First Liberty is the largest legal nonprofit in the country that all we do is religious freedom... We represent Giovanni so that we don’t just win for Giovanni—which we did—but we set a precedent that protects all of our freedoms.” — Kelly Shackelford [03:24]

---

2. Texas Lawsuit Against Swing States: Legal Background and Implications

The Texas Supreme Court Filing

• [04:29-06:41] Kelly breaks down the unprecedented move by Texas to file an “original jurisdiction” suit at the Supreme Court, directly challenging the election processes in several key swing states (Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and potentially Pennsylvania).
• Key Legal Principle:
  Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction when one state sues another, bypassing lower courts.
• Quote:

  “Texas sued a number of these swing states, saying, ‘Look, you are diluting our vote and hurting our ability to have a fair election when you don’t follow the Constitution in your state.’” — Kelly Shackelford [04:48]

• Other States' Involvement:
  Louisiana and Florida are mentioned as joining the lawsuit.

  “Jeff Landry from Louisiana, Florida is expected to join.” — Charlie Kirk [07:20]

Legal Uncertainty and Precedent

• [07:25-12:46] Discussion focuses on the lack of historical precedent for such cases, particularly involving election outcomes.
• Quote:

  “There’s not a lot of history to this to know what they’re going to do. This has not really happened before... certainly during an election.” — Kelly Shackelford [07:25]

Judicial Discretion and Timing

• The Supreme Court can technically decline to take the case, but the unique “original jurisdiction” makes avoidance more complicated.
• Electoral Timeline:
  While the focus is on December 14 for electoral votes, the real constitutional deadline is January 6, when Congress certifies the results.

  “Really, when you look at the real timing, you’re really talking about January 6th... So there is time.” — Kelly Shackelford [12:54]

---

3. Georgia Lawsuit: Specific Allegations of Election Law Violations

The Details of the Case

• [08:10-15:24] Kelly outlines the main complaints in the Trump campaign's lawsuit in Georgia, filed by attorney Cleta Mitchell.
• Allegations:
  • Over 66,000 underage or otherwise ineligible voters (e.g., out-of-state residents).
  • The Secretary of State (Raffensperger) allegedly sent absentee ballots to voters without individual requests, violating state law.
  • Settlements with lawsuits (notably by Stacey Abrams) bypassed the state legislature, modifying rules unconstitutionally.
  • Required signature verification was skipped.
• Quote:

  “The law says... you compare the signatures to make sure that it’s the same person. Georgia, the secretary of state just said no.” — Kelly Shackelford [09:21]

• Legal Substance:
  Kelly contrasts this lawsuit's robust documentation with other “wild” cases, emphasizing evidence-based, clearly quantifiable rule violations.

Why the Case Matters

• [17:24-18:35] The outcome could influence both the presidential outcome and upcoming Senate runoffs in Georgia.
• Quote:

  “Getting this straight now is important for a number of reasons. So I really appreciate what Cleta Mitchell... did on behalf of the campaign.” — Kelly Shackelford [17:32]

• Constitutional Basis:
  The Constitution explicitly gives the state legislature the authority over elections—an argument that played a central role in Bush v. Gore.
• Quote:

  “You can’t go into court and have some local judge overturn the state legislature. You can’t have the secretary of state decide they’re going to overturn the state legislature. That’s not what the Constitution says.” — Kelly Shackelford [17:58]

---

4. Settlements and Signature Verification Controversies

• [18:35-22:17] Explores Raffensperger’s settlement with Stacey Abrams, which eliminated mandatory signature checks—viewed by the speakers as a significant vulnerability to fraud.
• Quote:

  “She sued a lawsuit... and [Raffensperger], as the secretary of state, settled the lawsuit by agreeing to do certain things, including not doing signature checks, which is fairly outrageous because you really open yourself to fraud.” — Kelly Shackelford [18:41]

• Details about procedural failures, general neglect of the authority of the legislature, and the systemic problem of “dirty” voter rolls.

---

5. Judicial Reluctance and Human Nature in Election Cases

• [24:23-28:22] Kelly describes why judges are hesitant to overturn election outcomes, noting the immense political and personal pressures judges face.
• Quote:

  “If you’re a judge and you have one of these cases coming and they’re asking you to overturn an election, you don’t want to do that... You’re not starting from an impartial position.” — Kelly Shackelford [24:23, 24:45]

• Judges often opt to dismiss on procedural grounds like “standing” to avoid substantive rulings that could incur massive public backlash.

---

6. Religious Freedom Cases Amidst COVID-19

Landmark Litigation Initiated by First Liberty

• [30:13-32:15] Kelly recounts launching the first pandemic-era First Amendment lawsuit, highlighting the Louisville, KY “drive-in church” case and its decisive win.
• Quote:

  “We call it the shot heard around the world... because everybody was wondering, did we lose the Constitution?” — Kelly Shackelford [30:41]

Impact of Recent Supreme Court Decisions

• [32:15-38:23] The Brooklyn, NY church ruling with the newly appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett is discussed as a turning point.
• The ongoing Danville Christian School (Kentucky) case is explained in detail—challenging discriminatory school closures.
• Quote:

  “The governor... shut down the schools, including all the Christian schools. Meanwhile, universities open, Kentucky basketball game, strip clubs, theaters open... It’s total discrimination.” — Kelly Shackelford [32:41]

• The significance of “emergency motions” and how one justice (e.g., Kavanaugh) oversees them before polling the full court.
• Quote:

  “To rule in our favor, [Kavanaugh] has to say in his opinion that a majority of the court would rule with me on the merits of this case.”— Kelly Shackelford [36:19]

---

7. Systemic Effects and the Future of the Judicial System

• [41:12-41:34] Kelly highlights First Liberty’s role in tracking and promoting principled, “originalist” judicial nominees, emphasizing the long-term impact of recent Trump-era judicial appointments.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Legal Precedent and the Supreme Court:
  “There’s not a lot of history to this... This has not really happened before, certainly during an election.” — Kelly Shackelford [07:25]

• On Evidence in Election Lawsuits:
  “What you should do is throw all those votes out, and what you’d probably have to do in Georgia is have another election.” — Kelly Shackelford [15:00]

• On Judicial Decision-Making:
  “Good judges just do what’s right and whatever the consequences are, so be it.” — Kelly Shackelford [24:45]

• On Religious Liberty during COVID-19:
  “The Constitution is fully in place during the pandemic and [the judge] ruled in favor of the church. They had their Easter service.” — Kelly Shackelford [31:10]

• On the Stakes for Religious Education:
  “I mean, this is fundamental First Amendment rights... This will mean something for every private school and Christian school, religious school.” — Kelly Shackelford [34:21, 36:13]

• On the Future of the Courts:
  “That is the changing of the future, getting these good judges on the court so that we do have good decisions for your generation and following.” — Kelly Shackelford [41:26]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 03:01 — Kelly Shackelford introduction and First Liberty Institute mission
• 04:29 — Explanation of Texas “original jurisdiction” Supreme Court lawsuit
• 08:10 — Georgia election lawsuit details
• 13:56 — Why the Georgia case is different and potentially stronger
• 18:35 — Signature verification suit, Stacey Abrams settlement
• 24:23 — Judicial reluctance to overturn elections and “standing”
• 30:13 — Religious liberty case overview: drive-in church and broader implications
• 32:15 — Supreme Court’s Brooklyn case: impact on religious gatherings
• 34:21 — Danville Christian School/Kentucky shutdown case
• 41:12 — Role of judicial nominations in shaping the future

---

Conclusion

In a sweeping conversation, Charlie Kirk and Kelly Shackelford dissect some of the most consequential legal cases of 2020, revealing the legal reasoning, constitutional stakes, and human elements behind the headlines. From the Texas lawsuit challenging election results directly at the Supreme Court to the struggle to preserve religious freedom during pandemic restrictions, the episode underscores the tense intersection of law, politics, and faith at a defining moment for America’s constitutional order.

---

For more resources and updates on these topics:

• Visit firstliberty.org (cases, legal briefs, and judicial nominations database)
• Send questions or feedback: [e-mail]
• Learn about Turning Point USA: tpusa.com

Transcript

[A]

Hey, everybody. Super important episode. Texas takes on the world with Kelly Shackelford himself from First Liberty. He's a good friend, a great patriot. He understands the law like nobody else. He's fighting for our country in court. You'll love this conversation. Email us your questions freedomarliekirk.com and if you like this conversation, you want more people to hear what we are talking about, go to charliekirk.com support. Texas is putting on the fight. God bless Texas. Buckle up. Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.

[B]

I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point usa.

[A]

We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives. And we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here. Do you know that's just about two weeks till Christmas. It's incredible. I love Christmas season. Some people don't like it. It is our crazy season here at Turning Point usa. We got people running all over the place, people filming stuff. We got Student Action Summit coming up in Palm Beach. It's a crazy time, and it's a good time to be alive despite all the chaos, the uncertainty and the confusion. But I know a lot of you guys want to give back, and we've been given so much. So let's. Let's do just that. And let's try to get behind an effort that makes a very serious difference. This Christmas season, we've been partnering with Prison Fellowship. They've served over 300,000 children of prisoners, coordinating Christmas blessings for prisoners children through their annual Angel Tree program. But time is short and it takes a lot of work to line up families. And look, this is about the kids. Kids should not be punished because their mom and dad are in prison. And for just $22, you can help share the love of Christ right here on my show. Your gift is the most important. Volunteers like dawn from Dallas know that every donation, large or small, is so important. Children of prisoners deserve to experience the love of Christ that only you can make happen. So please make sure these precious kids are never forgotten. Just go to charliekirk.com and click on the Angel Tree Banner. $22 delivers joy to one child or just a gift of $220. You can bless 10 children of prisoners with a special Christmas present Angel Tree family is also given access to a free, easy to read copy of the Bible in English or Spanish. So once more, please go to charliekirk.com click on that Angel Tree banner or phone [phone] to join my campaign for Prison Fellowship's Angel Tree this year. But please hurry, Christmas is two. I am joined by a friend of mine, someone who's a true American patriot and a fellow Christian, Kelly Shackelford. Kelly, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.

[B]

It's great to be here. Fun place.

[A]

It actually is just such God's timing because we kind of teased our audience earlier that we were gonna be talking about this Texas deal and all the Supreme Court litigation fights religious freedom and you just happened to be coming to the office, which was awesome.

[B]

God's divine timing.

[A]

That's what you do for a living. First Liberty Talk just a second about First Liberty. I'd love people to know about it.

[B]

First Liberty is the largest legal nonprofit in the country that all we do is religious freedom. So if you're, you know, a fifth grade boy, Giovanni Rubio, and you're told you can bring any book to school you want during free reading time until you bring your Bible and then you're told you can't do that at school, you can't bring your Bible at school, and you're a poor family in Miami Dade area. What do you do? Well, we come in, offer Free Legal the best lawyers in the country, really, that donate their time from all the major law firms. We put the teams together. We represent Giovanni so that we don't just win for Giovanni, which we did, but we set a precedent that protects all of our freedoms. And so otherwise we would all lose our constitutional freedom. So First Liberty, that's what we do. All religious freedom all over the country.

[A]

You had an amazing testimonial of a woman that was blind outside, that was trying to give out the Book of John. It's just amazing what you guys have been able to do and be able to win. So I want to get into this Texas news. I know that you're just aware, just kind of the process, and it's actually less about the particulars, but more just about the bigger picture. You're from Texas. You guys are headquartered in Texas, Right? What was the news today? I came out of Texas.

[B]

Well, the news was that an original jurisdiction suit was filed on the election. Now, what that means is normally if you file a lawsuit, people think you can just go to the Supreme Court, right? No, you don't just go to the Supreme Court. The way you get to the Supreme Court is you go through either a state system, all the way through the highest court of the state. And then if you feel there's an issue that the Supreme Court can address, you can go from the state supreme Court to the US Supreme Court or you can go through the federal courts, the lower court, then the court of appeals, and then appeal to the U.S. supreme Court. And they take about less. They get about 8,000 requests a year, take 80 cases. So your odds are 1%. Yeah. What happened in Texas is the state in the constitution, there is very few things that you can file. You go straight to the Supreme Court and that is if one state goes after another state. And so what happened is Texas sued a number of these swing states saying, look, you are diluting our vote and hurting our ability to have a fair election when you don't follow the Constitution in your state. And what the Constitution says is that each state gets to determine, not state, each state legislature gets to determine how you do your election. And so therefore whatever the state legislature said is what you have to do. And of course, in a number of these states, they violated what the state legislature said. I mean, take, let's take Pennsylvania, right? Pennsylvania says, and the law says if you're going to do these mail in ballots, they have to be in by the time of the election. Well, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which is Democrat, said, no, no, we're going to extend that through the end of the week. Well, you can't do that. The legislature determines. So it was those type of things going on in numerous states that Texas is now challenging these states and now other states are beginning to join Texas in this. And so this is something that would go directly to the Supreme Court.

[A]

So is there any way. First of all, that was a great explanation and it's just hard to make sense of a lot of this stuff because the Article 3 is not exactly the one that we focus on the most. This is your. You've argued cases actually in front of the Supreme Court, am I right? Successful. So you personally have been in front of the Supreme Court.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Wow, that's awesome. So is it possible that. So it's Texas v. Georgia v. Wisconsin v. Michigan, is that correct?

[B]

Yeah. And I think Pennsylvania's in there, aren't they? I don't know if they are or not for sure, but I haven't looked closely at the paper, but I just saw that it was filed. I saw it was from the Texas attorney General. And I've heard that others are now joining that effort.

[A]

Jeff Landry from Louisiana, Florida is expected to join. Can the Supreme Court reject this?

[B]

Sure they can. Well, I mean, they can do what they want. That's the thing. There's no really, there's not a lot of history to this to know what they're going to do. I mean, this has not really happened before, certainly during an election. I mean, if you look at what the campaign filed on Friday, for instance, in Georgia, that is more typical. It was solid. Cleta Mitchell is an excellent election law attorney. But what she filed, just to help people understand, she said in the lawsuit, 64 pages, bunch of affidavits attached. So it's clear. It's not a pie in the sky type thing. It's real clear that they did what she's saying they did. For instance, it says 66,437 people voted who were not of legal age to vote. Okay.

[A]

That's what Khalida said.

[B]

Yes, that's in there. And they have the documentation. Okay. She said the state law. So she's going through that again. The constitution says the state legislature determines who can vote, how to vote, what all that is done under those rules. Georgia violated those. And she said and here's how many votes it cost. And so she shows 66,000 and some odd. I forget what the number was. People voted who were not eligible to vote. Age was, I think it was 20 something thousand voted who were not eligible to vote because they were in another state. There were a lot. One of the things is on the ballots, the absentee ballots, the law says you get a ballot to vote by mail only if you request one. Yet the secretary of state just sent them out to a bunch of people. Well, that's not valid. You violated the law. It also says when you write a signature and say I'd like a ballot because I have a situation where I need a ballot. When the ballot comes in with your vote, it is required under state law that you compare the signatures to make sure that it's the same person. Georgia, the secretary of state just said no.

[A]

Rothensperger just said forget it.

[B]

They agreed in a lawsuit that Stacey Abrams had filed that they just wouldn't do that. Well, they don't have that authority. They're not the state legislature and the constitution gives that authority to the state. So how many votes is that? All the mail in ballots that they didn't check signatures. So you start going down the list of all those votes that are in now. That's a really solid lawsuit in Georgia that was filed last Friday. But this is totally different. That would have to go district court, you know, go up through the chain and get to the Supreme Court. It's gonna have to go very fast. I don't know how they're gonna go that fast, but they clearly have evidence that you can't. These are invalid votes. What happened with Texas filing this is they just kind of skipped right over all this and went right into the Supreme Court.

[A]

It's kind of brilliant if you want to get in front of the Supreme Court. Now, I guess the Supreme Court could say we're not going to, but then who would?

[B]

Right? I mean, this is, you know. Well, they can say like they did today that the Pennsylvania case that went up, they can say we're not going to take it.

[A]

So Alito denied the case.

[B]

Yeah. Now, but that is a different. That's not original jurisdiction going in the court. You know, this is. They have discretion to take the ones that are coming up if they want to. This one they filed in Texas means it goes right into the court. So it's not a matter of a normal case. Normally, the way things work is, let's say you lose at the federal court of appeals, take our Bladensburg Cross Cross. It's been up for 100 years. The lower court, two Obama judges say tear down this cross after 100 years even though it's a veterans memorial because it's on government land. Well, we go to the Supreme Court, normally what happens is four of the justices have to agree that they want to take the case. If they do, it's up. And so but, you know, 8,000, 9,000 requests a year. They only take about 80. So your chance is less than 1% because they're only going to take so many cases. And I'm sure it's a little bit of the same way with election. There are all these cases swimming around. Right. They're not. They don't want to take all these cases. They don't want to probably take a case unless it's really relevant. But in this case, they kind of weren't given the choice because it was an original jurisdiction case that's going to go directly to them.

[A]

So original jurisdiction, is that from McCullough v. Maryland or what?

[B]

It's from the Constitution in the Constitution.

[A]

Settle state differences.

[B]

Yeah. It specifically gives the Supreme Court very little jurisdiction. And so, for instance, if you go to the Constitution, I mean, I, you know, I know you would advocate read your Constitution tonight.

[A]

But this is so helpful because a Lot of us just go look at it.

[B]

It doesn't say how many justices, which is why they want a court pack.

[A]

It doesn't say circuit court judges either.

[B]

It doesn't have anything about the lower courts, a creation of Congress and it gives them jurisdiction and says, says specifically that again, if you have states suing each other, it goes in the courts.

[A]

The Supreme Court.

[B]

The Supreme Court.

[A]

And so is there any, can you give us some examples of precedent of states suing each other or how this works?

[B]

Well, I don't know much about it. It's not something we've seen very much. I would have to go back and look. I've never, my cases don't go that way. I'm filing under the First Amendment. I'm laughing and so I haven't seen it. So I haven't, I've seen it. I haven't experienced it. I haven't been involved in those cases.

[A]

It would probably be minority issues, I would imagine, usually. Right.

[B]

It would be states maybe arguing over the border. It could be, it could be anything where two states are really, you know,

[A]

in an election it seems very.

[B]

Oh yeah, it's, it's, we, I don't think we've seen anything like this.

[A]

And the Supreme Court really wouldn't have a choice but to at least hear part of it before rejecting it.

[B]

They're going to have to do something. I mean, look, the court can do kind of what it wants to do. I mean, it's there for life and it can, you know, people can say, well, I can't reject. Well, it could dismiss, you know, on some rationale. But it does skip all these normal steps when you're kind of out of time. Not really out of time. I mean, really, when you look at the real timing, you're really talking about January 6th, you know, when it goes to Congress and they have to certify the election. Yeah. And so there is time. But everybody's kind of looking at December 14, where the electoral votes are cast.

[A]

But that could be moved.

[B]

It could, it could be. They could, they could. And they could overturn that just because the electoral votes are cast. It still would go to the House and the Senate. But I don't think any of that's going to happen unless something is shown in court that the American people get to see and then realize, okay, this is a problem. I wish more people could see, for instance, the filing that was done in Georgia on Friday.

[A]

Can you talk even more about that? So it was by Khalida Mitchell, Trump campaign Cuz there's just been so much noise. You actually argue cases, not these types of cases, but you have to go up against judges, tough judges, I'm sure.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Ninth Circuit. And you gotta have all your evidence ready to go and also withstand, you know, cross examination and all of that. So what really struck you about the Georgia case that was filed by our friend Cleta different than some of the other ones?

[B]

It wasn't something that was, you know, what you worry about in these cases? I mean, because it's so hard and for good reason. Overturning an election is something we don't want courts doing. We'd rather the people make those decisions, but they've got to be valid elections. Okay. And so a lot of these things being filed are kind of were a little wild and they might require some proof. Like, you know, well, somebody did this and I think they brought in fraudulent ballots and all. Well, you know, people are going to argue, did they really do that? What was in those? You know, the things that Cleta did in the lawsuit are things that were really undeniable. I mean, you have records of how old people are. It says so and so voted, and you have a record of how old they were and they weren't eligible to vote. You have, you know, what the law says about comparing the signatures and they know exactly how many of those wasn't done. And so literally what you should do is throw all those votes out. And what you would probably have to do in Georgia is have another election.

[A]

Small business banking. There's only one name you need to know. It's aslo. ASLO offers a free business checking account with invoicing bill pay, no minimum balance requirements, and no maintenance or overdraft fees. Instead of the days it takes at a traditional bank where you're still required to go in person, with aslo, you go to azlo.com and apply in minutes. There is no waiting to use your account. With aslo's free instant funding feature, you can deposit up to $1,000 and access it instantly. And now they've launched the all new ASLO Pro Bundle for only $10 a month with tools like unlimited envelopes to organize your money, discounted instant transfers, and the ability to set up recurring invoices. Because you listen to this podcast, you can try ASLO pro free for 14 days at aslo. Aslo.com does an amazing job. I know a lot of people that have done. They've really been able to figure out their banking needs through aslo. It's terrific work. So go to aslo.com Charlie Azlo.com Charlie Azlo.Com Charlie so Cleta Mitchell, who's phenomenal and I've known her for years, they filed in what court in Georgia?

[B]

They filed in a Georgia state court and said, you know, the state law was violated. It's also violated the United States constitution. And I'm 90% sure that that's where she filed, because I think I remember looking at that when she filed it. I was looking more at what's in there, which the arguments that are made would work in federal court, too, because they're saying you violated the federal constitution. But she went in and said, look, the federal constitution says that the state legislature determines the manner and the modes of the elections. Here's what those say, here's how those are violated. And in each case, they put the number of votes that were illegal, and it's a huge number. And of course, Georgia was what, 20,000 or something?

[A]

I think it's down to, what is it now, 12, is that right? No, Georgia's down. Arizona's 12. Yeah. Georgia might be right around there.

[B]

I think it's 27,000.

[A]

That's right.

[B]

And so they're way beyond that. And so it's just hard to argue with that. And I think we've got to get back to, I mean, Georgia's important not only because of the presidential election, but they're having these Senate runoffs. Right. And if they violate all these things again, I mean, so getting this straight now is important for a number of reasons. So I really appreciate what Kalita Mitchell, and she did that on behalf of the campaign. And I think it was a smart move, and I think it was an important move because the way our Constitution works is you can't go into court and have some local judge overturn the state legislature. You can't have the secretary of state decide they're going to overturn the state legislature. That's not what the constitution says. It gives that authority. It doesn't say the state shall. It says the state legislature. The founders were very specific in the power, and Bush versus Gore affirmed that. Back when we had that case go to the Supreme Court, they said it's the state legislature that makes the decision.

[A]

You mentioned that Stacey Abrams settled with Raffensperger in defiance to the state law. Can you help unpack that?

[B]

She sued a lawsuit, filed a lawsuit, and he, as the secretary of state, settled the lawsuit by agreeing to do certain things, including not doing signature checks, which is fairly outrageous because you really open yourself open to fraud. That's the Reason the let. And it's not just Georgia. Anywhere you go that has an absentee ballot, they have the signature verification. Because what you don't want is some sort of ballot harvesting or whatever where somebody's, like sending out a lot of requests for votes. And then you send out these ballots, and then they send them in and fill them out with whoever they want. You want the request to be made. You don't just send them at random so that there's thousands of them being grabbed by people in trash cans. You want to send them to the people who ask for them, and then you want those people to do their vote and send it back in. You can check both signatures to make sure it's the same person.

[A]

So if I were to venture a guess, Stacey Abrams, we are. Well, let me tell you what we already know, and then I'm going to just fill in the piece here. Stacey Abrams raised a bunch of money, 30, $40 million from out of state, hired the best law firms, came in and engaged in lawfare. But I would imagine that she probably had a bunch of people that said my vote didn't count, even though my signature was off a little bit. Is that right?

[B]

Yeah. Well, it was about all kinds of things in the election. I mean, she was complaining. Yeah. Because she said she won the election for governor and that Kemp didn't win and voters were disenfranchised. And so they throw everything in there and they come after them.

[A]

Civil Rights act, they come with equal protection.

[B]

But the biggest point in all this is it might sound nice, okay, you settle the lawsuit. The secretary of state agrees to such and such. You can't do that. The Constitution doesn't give that authority to a local judge. I don't care if it's a federal judge. I don't care if it's a state court judge. I don't care if it's secretary of state. The Constitution says that the manner and modes of the election is determined by the state legislature. So the state legislature in Georgia said you have to do the signature verification, and it wasn't followed.

[A]

And so Rothensberger just went rogue. Then in this settlement with Stacey Abrams, then, yeah, he just created law.

[B]

Yeah. And a lot of people think they can do that because they think, well, the federal judge told me, or, you know, it's under a court order, you know, what am I supposed to do? And so they're going, they're entering this agreement with the court, and they feel like, okay, I've done the best I can do, but they're not thinking about who really has authority over these issues for future elections. The other thing that, by the way, is in there, I mean, there's so many. They put a box where if you ask for a ballot and you could check and say, send me a ballot and all the future ones. Without me asking.

[A]

Are you kidding me?

[B]

Yeah, without me asking. Because since you wanted one in this one. So guess what? Everybody is now getting that for these Senate races. Who asked, by the way, the law says you can't ask for and get a ballot within 180 days. Well, they violated that. So this is the problem. They're doing things. That is not what the state legislature has done.

[A]

So Raffensperger was just outgunned legally, basically. And he came to some civil settlement, I guess.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And he just laid down his arms, probably because I would only imagine maybe there was something to something he did wrong.

[B]

Who knows? I don't know.

[A]

I'm just. Because he should have just fought this thing through, I guess. Right.

[B]

Well, this happens a lot. There were cases that have been on the books for years that would not allow local officials to clean up voting rolls. So a lot of the voting rolls, you'll go to 10, 15% of the names are invalid. There are people who are dead, they've moved, whatever. Well, you know, why would you want to not clean up the voting rolls? But these are the kind of lawsuits. And then what happens is people then vote fraudulently in those. And of course, with his last election, all those people got sent ballots in a number of these states that decided to send out the ballot. So it's a real problem. Look, if we, everybody, not only do our elections need to be fair and accurate and valid and not fraudulent, but people need to understand and be able to trust that that's true.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

If you don't have both those things, you don't have a democratic republic because people don't look at their leaders as legitimate and you've got real problems. And so this is something that again, sometimes I. Everybody should be for free speech, even when it's speech you don't like. Right. Everybody should be for this. Even if you're on the other side of the election, you should go, we're going to lose our country if we don't get control of this. And it's sad to see people so shallow and really not have enough intelligence to understand that this will not be good for them either when you have some sort of banana republic that you end up creating in the United States of America.

[A]

So I want to Ask one more piece on this, and then I want to get into the religious liberty fight that you guys are doing, especially on the lockdowns, all of it. You guys have been really amazing on it, which is, can you walk us through what a judge will be looking for? So you have to. You've argued in front of the US Supreme Court, as you just said, really impressive. Your organization has won cases at the highest level. I think some of our listeners and our viewers, they email us by the tens of thousands. And you guys can do that right now. Freedomcharliekirk.com and I'll read some of these questions off for you. They say, how could a judge not overturn this? How they see it so clearly. And I share that frustration. Can you add some kind of context to that, Kelly?

[B]

Yeah, let me give you, I'll give you the human side and the legal side. The human side is understand that judges are human beings. So if you're a judge and you have one of these cases come and they're asking you to overturn an election, you don't want to do that. Just you'd rather somebody else decide the election.

[A]

You're not starting from an impartial position.

[B]

No. You're like, that's super helpful. And then if you're, almost all judges are elected or they're appointed by somebody who's elected so they're politically sensitive. If they just go along and kind of do their job and everything, they're fine. But if they all of a sudden hit a controversial case and they take a decision, half of the people are furious at them. Their ability to maybe be elevated or maybe run for election to a higher office are hurt. So the temptation for. And I'm saying good judges don't care about this. Good judges just do what's right and whatever the consequences are, so be it. Those are the kinds of people we've been getting onto the federal bench under the Trump administration, people who are originalists, they don't care about the politics, you know, but if you. So one of the big temptations if you're a judge is to throw a case out on what's called standing, meaning you normally can't bring a lawsuit unless you were injured. And so I can't say, hey, Charlie was injured. I'm bringing a lawsuit on behalf of Charlie because this was really wrong, what happened to Charlie. Well, I don't have that standing. Only you would have that standing. And so what in a lot of these cases, they'll say, somebody will bring a lawsuit over the election. They say, well, you don't really have standing. If you were the party, you could bring a lawsuit. But. And so if you throw it out on standing, you're not getting into the substantive issue where you anger people. And so a lot of process.

[A]

So ticky tack.

[B]

And if you'll watch most of these lawsuits that have been filed on election, that's how they're being thrown out. You know, you don't have. So that's part one. Part two is, you know, just because somebody sees something that says, well, this happened, or maybe even a witness says, hey, I saw them fraudulently vote. Yes, that's not proving anything. That's evidence. But what you find is. And this is in scripture. Right. It's a powerful case until the other side gets up and responds. So maybe they have more information that you don't have and maybe. So you've got to get in court and prove these things before you can know they're true. And that's why I thought that Georgia was so powerful, because these are not things. Charlie saw it this way, but oh, no, no, you didn't see what we saw, or oh, no, no, no, those weren't ballots we were pulling out of the suitcases. Those were something else.

[A]

If you're the state, then they're gonna be like, oh, no, it wasn't 66,000 young people. It was. Let's go to the list. Oh, it was 35,000. Right. Basically.

[B]

And it's. The names are there.

[A]

You know, you can go piece by piece.

[B]

That way you can look at every one of them. You can see exactly how old they are. So it's stuff you can't really dispute. So that's why that kind of lawsuit is really difficult to disagree with. Some of the other things, like were the voting machines, you know, doing. That's a lot to prove, you know, and these cases are so hard because you have very little time. I mean, you know, this thing happens normally with lawsuits. You work on your lawsuit for a year, two years, getting it in shape, getting the witnesses doing well. The problem is you just don't have any of that time here to get the evidence, to do discovery, to do what you normally do. So it's very difficult in these election

[A]

contests because you have to be right. And so you're up against the constitutional kind of guardrails there.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So that's super helpful to kind of help contextualize all that. So we. The most insightful thing you said, and I'm going to keep. I'm going to repeat it, which is that these judges actually don't want to throw out these elections.

[B]

No.

[A]

That there's actually a higher threshold than if this was just a kind of a property rights issue of someone, like an irrigation issue that someone's suing over.

[B]

Right. Some of that we respect because we don't. We want the people to decide the election. So this is a really unusual.

[A]

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I just think that we have to.

[B]

And it's human nature. People need to put themselves in that seat and try to step back from who they're rooting for and ask if it was the other side and say, would you want to be the one to decide the election versus the people somehow? And again, I mean, good judges are going to do their job even if everybody hates them. We need more justices like Justice Thomas, who really doesn't care. He's the best, you know, and we're getting more. I think Amy Coney Barrett is going to be that type of justice. I think there are a lot of these lower court judges we've gotten in federal court of appeals and district court who are awesome, and they're going to be the future Supreme Court justices. But, you know, just realize human nature and what you're dealing with in a lot of these state courts and other places where the whole universe is landing in their court.

[A]

Did you know your family can save over $800 a year just by switching to peertalk from Verizon, AT&T or T mobile? Look, I looked into peertalk. They do a great job. So listen carefully. What could your family do with an extra $800? It's like a stimulus. I have a stimulus package and a cell phone plan. It's pretty amazing. It's peertalk. Same coverage, same bars as the big carriers, but they charge you half. You definitely don't need to sacrifice customer service. Their team is based right here in the United States. And some of the nicest people you'll ever talk to don't wait. Switch. Today, you can give your phone and your number or choose from a massive selection of the latest iPhones and Androids. Got unlimited Talk, text and 2 gigs of data for just 20 bucks a month. And if you go over on the data usage, they don't charge you for it. Grab your mobile phone and dial £250 and say Charlie Kirk. When you do, you'll save 50% off your first month. Dial £250 and say keyword Charlie Kirk. PearTalk is simply smarter wireless. We're both Christians. You're doing the Best work out there for the fight for religious freedom. You mentioned there's a case that could decide everything. What is it?

[B]

Well, the case we have right now is, of course, I'll go back. You know, we filed the first case in the country during the pandemic on the First Amendment and religious freedom. We knew it was going to be hard to win, so we waited for the right case. We set up the right case and we filed. It was a great. It was a. It was on Easter weekend, a church wanting to do a drive in service.

[A]

Mississippi, if I remember right?

[B]

No, it was Louisville.

[A]

Oh, I'm sorry.

[B]

Mississippi was very similar. We had that one too, with the African American church.

[A]

Yeah, I remember that one.

[B]

But the big one that hit in federal court where there was a full hearing and TRO and a federal injunction. We call it the shot heard around the world, kind of like the American Revolution, because everybody was wondering, did we lose the Constitution? And we're watching people being arrested for throwing a baseball in the park with their kids and the guy coming off the beach being handcuffed and all this stuff. And it was telling them they couldn't have a drive in service. And in fact, they were going to not only criminally prosecute them, but the governor said they were going to go. They had police go around to all the churches that weekend and write down the license plates of every car in the church parking lot, and they would be visited at their home and then quarantined for 14 days. And we were like, okay, this is the case. We're in China, you know, and it's Louisville. Yes. And we got a great judge and in fact, a very young federal judge, and Judge Justin Walker just issued a powerful decision that said, this is outrageous. The Constitution is fully in place during the pandemic and ruled in favor of the church. They had their Easter service. So we really started in a lot of these cases, but the problem was the emergency motions that were going up from other states were nullifying words. Yeah. And they got up to. They didn't necessarily always file smart appeals to the Supreme Court. And at the time, you had Justice Roberts, who would normally be the swing boat for the Las Vegas, going the wrong way. And well, now you had the replacement with Amy Coney Barrett. And two weeks ago, you had the Brooklyn case out of New York, which began to change everything, which said, no,

[A]

no, no, no, that's an ACB Trump win. I mean, that is huge.

[B]

Huge. And so for churches, now the message has been sent this discrimination against churches has got to stop. I mean, that was. And Alito gave that message about a week before in the Federal Society speech that he gave. People criticized him, but he was doing exactly what he had to do. His job is to speak for the Constitution. I mean, as a justice. If they won't stand for the Constitution, all of us lose our freedoms. So he did that. Well, our case that happened soon thereafter is the Danville Christian School case. And I love this case for a lot of reasons, but number one, this is a Christian school in Kentucky. The governor of Kentucky issued an order that shut down the schools, including all the Christian schools. Meanwhile, universities are open. Okay. 3,000 people at the Kentucky basketball game. Fine. Strip clubs open, theaters open. Okay? The CDC itself said the safest place you can be is in a school because kids don't transmit it as much. You know, when you're talking about K through 12. Well, so there's no science for this. It's total discrimination. So not only did we file our lawsuit on behalf of Christians, and plus, this is a fundamental right, the right of parents to choose Christian education, to teach and inculcate the religious teaching for those Christian schools and churches and all that. I mean, this is fundamental First Amendment rights. Not only did we file it, but the Attorney General of Kentucky, Daniel Cameron, he said, I'm joining you. So the Attorney General sued his own governor with us. So we are against Brashear saying this is unconstitutional. We wanted an injunction at the district court. They said this is outrageous. The court of appeals, we got a bad panel. And so they said we're going to stay this injunction that allows the schools to open. So we. Because the loss of First Amendment freedoms for even a moment of time is irreparable. We went on an emergency motion which goes to Justice Kavanaugh. He is responsible for that.

[A]

Circuit, can I ask a question? What does emergency motion mean? Can anyone do that? Is it risky or.

[B]

It's very risky. Because courts, like a normal case that comes up through the process, gets to them and let's say they take it. There's months for people to file briefs. You file a 50 page brief, the other side files a 30 page response. You file a 20 page response to their response. Other amicus, other outside groups file briefs and they get to see all the thinking, all the arguments. Then they have an oral argument and they test everything and then they write an opinion. They love that. What they don't like is this is an emergency motion. They grant them one out of a thousand times.

[A]

Are you serious?

[B]

Yes.

[A]

So people are just sending them all the Time.

[B]

Well, not all the time, but they, they know that if it's an emergency, they do it. And most of the time they lose. And that's what all these church cases you're seeing. There's been no case that, like even in Brooklyn, that's not a case. That was an emergency motion.

[A]

Because they divide the country. Is that right?

[B]

No. Yeah.

[A]

Well, that's why there's a search in a different area.

[B]

But the emergency is because it hasn't. The case is not over and it's not going to the Court of Appeals and then the Supreme Court and they're setting argument time. Because what happens is these orders come and they can go, but they're in place right now and you're losing your. You can't wait a year.

[A]

No, of course. So then Kavanaugh oversees the Kentucky area.

[B]

That's right. That circuit, the sixth Circuit goes to Kavanaugh. But what Kavanaugh has to do is look at it. And what he did in this case is he said he called for a response from the governor, which means he's seriously looking at this. And that response came in on Friday. And then our reply came in, Mitch McConnell and 38 senators filed on our side saying, saying this is outrageous. I think the American Medal association just jumped in on the other side. But. So he could rule any day now.

[A]

So he's the singular judge.

[B]

He is. But to rule in our favor, he has to say in his opinion that a majority of the court would rule with me on the merits of this case.

[A]

How can he say that?

[B]

He goes and talks to the other justice. He takes a vote, he goes and he talks to each of them and they've looked at the briefing or he informs them and they look at it. And so every time you see one of these emergency motions, like the Brooklyn

[A]

decision, she's going and doing a roll call.

[B]

That's right. It's whoever. It has to be a majority. So that what they're saying is, we know we don't have enough time to go into depth on this because we don't have the normal. All the briefing and all the argument and all this. But we're saying that from what we can see now, there would be a majority that would rule with you on the merits. This is important because not only because this is wrong and what's going on in Kentucky, shutting down all these schools is. I mean, I want you to think about this. What they're saying is, let's say you're a parent, you have a 12 year old boy, they can go to the movie theater and sit in the movie. They can go to the Kentucky basketball game with 3,000 people. They can go over to the gambling parlor, they can go to the horse track, but they can't go to the Danville Christian School and sit in a classroom with 12 kids who are socially distanced. It's nuts. And plus, that's the safest place they can be. So it makes no sense. But if a decision comes down, this will mean something for every private school and Christian school, religious school. So it could be negative. It could be. It could be that. He says, we're not going to take. We're not going to rule this way. It's an emergency motion, come to us later. But if we do get a ruling, it'll be just like what happened with the churches in that. It'll be a signal all across the country to a lot of these governors who are out of control.

[A]

So this is different than the Calvary Chapel Las Vegas one.

[B]

That's right.

[A]

That was not an emergency. Right. That was the full vote.

[B]

It was. No, it was an emergency motion. But what they did is they quickly said, in light, we're sending this back down.

[A]

Got it.

[B]

We're telling you to vacate the decision below, which was upholding the governor's order, shutting down the churches because you need to. Because you didn't have the opportunity to look at what we did in the New York, the Brooklyn case.

[A]

But Vegas was months ago. That was when Roberts won 5, 4.

[B]

That's right. And that was an emergency motion.

[A]

It was emergency motion overseas. That's probably the ninth. Right.

[B]

That's the. I don't know what circuit Vegas.

[A]

It could be eighth or ninth, probably.

[B]

But whatever it is, it is now going up there. The people doing that case are trying to get it to the Supreme Court in the regular way.

[A]

Got it.

[B]

But it's not there yet.

[A]

So these emergency motions are overseen by one person, but not really. They do go and they get the.

[B]

That's right.

[A]

Now, is this constitutional or did they create this system themselves?

[B]

Everything below the Supreme Court is really made up by Congress anyway. Right. I mean, the lower courts aren't in the Constitution.

[A]

Sure. This whole process of Kavanaugh overseeing Kentucky.

[B]

Well, you put somebody. I mean, it's kind of typical because, like, if you're a district court judge, you might come, somebody might come in with an emergency motion, what's called a temporary restraining order. Because there's some times if you don't stop something, it's over. I mean, for instance, let's Say, you know, you're about to go in and speak somewhere and the state of, you know, California decides, we hate Charlie Kirk. We're not going to allow him to speak in our state. Well, if you can't speak tomorrow, you don't ever get that day back. So you can, but. So you would have a right to get an injunction to allow you to speak. So things that you can't undo. There are a process for an emergency. If it's just money, somebody can sue you later and get all the money back. Right.

[A]

That wouldn't qualify as an emergency. That's right.

[B]

And that's what most cases are about, money.

[A]

But the school is. Because you're losing school days, you're losing.

[B]

They can never send them back to the school. And plus, I mean, this is not in the argument where you've seen all this. Kids are committing suicide left and right.

[A]

Kid today in Maine that wrote in a suicide notice because of the lockdowns.

[B]

And we're talking about 10 year olds and less. And so we've got to get on top of this. And so I'm really hopeful, in fact, I'd encourage people to pray for Justice Kavanaugh and for the court because this will affect all these schools. And then, I mean, I am not one who ever quotes Anthony Fauci, right? But Anthony Fauci said last week, close the bars, open the schools. Even he says, open the schools. So the idea that they're traumatizing and harming these kids around the country, when especially we went with the religious schools, because that's the most fundamental right, the right to inculcate religion in your children, to choose that school for your children. And to have the government come in and say, we're shutting you down. We're like, you better have some serious evidence to do this. And they don't. Not only do they not have evidence, what they're doing is irrational.

[A]

And so it's not just Kavanaugh, it's gonna be the whole court. And I think, I hope they'll rule correctly.

[B]

I do, too. I do too. It's a big one, but it'll probably come down in the next day or two.

[A]

Wow. Well, we'll be praying for that. And thank you for helping unpack all this Supreme Court stuff. It's been super helpful. And so the website again, first liberty.org

[B]

they can look at all the cases. We even have a deal down at the bottom on judicial nominees so they can go through and look at all the Trump, all the appointments. I bet very few people know Three judges were confirmed last week. We expect to get another five this week onto the court for life.

[A]

It's a big deal.

[B]

That is the changing of the future, getting these good judges on the court so that we do have good decisions for your generation and following.

[A]

Amen. Any closing thoughts?

[B]

I appreciate you and I really appreciate Turning Point. My wife has a real heart for the next generation and you're giving us encouragement and I'm just grateful for all the people out there, including our son who's at college and is a member of his Turning Point chapter. So thank you for all you're doing and just call everybody can always call us. We're the free lawyers when it's religious freedom and we don't like to lose, so we don't lose very well.

[A]

We're going to call you to explain all this stuff because it's a lot of different process that we don't understand. Kelly, thanks so much.

[B]

Thank you.

[A]

Thanks so much for listening, everybody. If you guys want to get involved with Turning Point USA, go to tpusa.com email us your questions freedomarliekirk.com and if you want to support us, it's charliekirk.com support. Thank you guys so much for listening. God bless. Speak to you soon.