A Week Of Election Integrity Wins

And we are back with another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, Senior Elections correspondent at The Federalist and your experience Sherpa on today's quest. for knowledge. As always, you can email the show at Radio at the Federalist.com. Follow us on X at FBRLST. Make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast and, of course, the premium version of our website as well. Our guest today is Ken Cuchinelli, National Chairman of the Election Transparency Initiative. Ken previously served as former Attorney General of Virginia, Deputy Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security. And, well, he's basically done it all when it comes to

election law. Good morning, sir. Thank you for joining us in this edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. My pleasure. We have quite a week to get into. As we reported at the Federalist, it has been a good week for election integrity. But let's begin here. Can I ask you something real quick. What's going on with your state? Your Commonwealth, I should say. What is going on? I mean, man, oh, man, for those who thought they were getting a moderate governor in

Abigail Spanberger, boy, were they sold a bad bill of goods. Well, a lot of us knew that she wasn't a moderate. Sure. Media, of course, played along. And, you know, but you don't really need to know much more than that. she was one of the co-sponsors of the Equality Act. And that, as usual in D.C., don't believe the name, the Affordable Care Act, right? Not affordable and they don't care.

Same of the Equality Act was targeting religion and religious institutions to completely gut their ability to hire consistent with their own faith. That's what that was targeted at. And it was a transgender bonanza. and no one who co-sponsors something like that is a moderate. She lied through her teeth knowingly on the gerrymandering question, just blatantly, brazenly, well, consistent with how the Democrat General Assembly did their gerrymandering, blatantly and brazenly, trampling the state constitution.

But look, I'm just not surprised at what I'm getting. I'm very sad because I'm obviously a parochial Virginia who loves Virginia very much and we're getting Californicated here at a very high rate. Even Democrat local leaders are complaining about things like collective bargaining that's getting jammed down our throat. And we're a, I think of the 50 states,

we have the lowest unionization rate. We're a right to work state. They're radically undoing that. they're jamming every gun-grabbing law through that they can think of. They're advancing the most radical abortion and transgender amendment in the country to try to put it in our Constitution, as if abortion is going somewhere with this General Assembly and Governor. It's just one thing after another, and Abigail Spanberger is leading the way.

I like the term that you use, California-cated. It's very red hot chili pepper of you, but it is very true. I mean, that's what we've seen over and over again. I see it from, you know, conservatives across the country in purple states. And that's what Virginia is despite, you know, let me comment on that. Yeah. The reason we're not a red state anymore is because Republicans and Democrats in Washington, D.C. can't control themselves on spending.

And let's not just blame Democrats. Republicans have done this too. My only John McCain quote is that saying that legislators, congressmen, spend like drunken sailors, is offensive to drunken sailors who were at least spending their own money. And he was right about that. He never did anything about it. But good quote. But on a bipartisan basis, as long as they keep growing. the federal government, all those Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, California, big government people are going to move here to work in the big government, and they're going to vote for more big government. And those votes are going to get cast in Northern Virginia, and we're going to get bluer and bluer and bluer, and we'll have Republicans in part to blame in Washington, D.C. Oh, no doubt about it. I mean, I think that puts it all in perspective. And yes, I like the quote from McCain a great deal. The man himself, as you mentioned, didn't do much to change things.

And really for conservatives who were looking for conservative action, they came to the wrong place, just like those looking for moderates in Abigail Spanberger, a moderate in Abigail Spanberger picked the wrong person as well. Let's talk about how Democrats in Virginia want to make the state blue. And the way to do that along the way, of course, is this whole redistricting scheme and scam. Good news on that front this week. We'll see where the Supreme Court ultimately goes. And I guess that's what I want to ask you.

Are you getting a sense that this Supreme Court will look at the actual law here and say, first of all, the process wasn't followed in accordance with the state constitution? and then ultimately we have all kinds of other issues here. Where do you see all of this going in Virginia? Yeah, so Virginia's Supreme Court has historically been far less political than say Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Montana Supreme Courts. We've seen some California. We've seen some very political Supreme Court.

Four of the justices were selected by Republican General Assembly's, three by Democrat General Assemblies. And we're one of two states where the General Assembly picks judges and justices. The other is South Carolina. And I think that's the least bad system out there so long as you don't have a lunatic General Assembly. Unfortunately, we seem to be headed in that direction in Virginia. But at the moment, the Virginia Supreme Court is a highly respectable Supreme Court. and I would be very surprised if they do not throw out the referendum as being in violation of the strict procedures for amending the state constitution that are in place in Virginia under the state constitution.

So for listeners, this is all a state constitutional fight. Nothing here is going to go to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of Virginia, Skova, not SCOTUS, is going to be where the buck stops on all of these arguments. There are no federal arguments that I know of that are viable

to challenge what's going on here. They're all state constitutional and state statutory challenges. Well, I think that the SCOTUS, the U.S. Supreme Court, has made it pretty clear. we're going to get into a monumental decision written by Samuel Alito coming up in just a bit. But, you know, they made it clear that, you know, politics is part of the map drawing, the congressional map drawing process. And that is exactly politics and partisanship.

I mean, it's hypocritical of the Democrats in Virginia because they have talked about for so long how evil gerrymandering is. and this is, if not the most, it is right up there with the most gerrymandered maps ever proposed, but they also supported an independent commission, a referendum back six years ago, that established an independent commission to create these maps, congressional maps. And so that was put in place by a two to one margin. of Virginia voters. It was overwhelming.

Exactly. So, I mean, the hypocrisy is built in, but, you know, if they would have just done this on politics, that would have been one thing. But they messed up the process, as I can see it. Can you explain how that works in Virginia and what went a foul here with the special session and all of that? So there are three cases right now. I refer to them as the 2020.

violations, the 2026 violations, and then one case on the map itself. You don't ever get to the map unless the referendum survives. Right. So there are two constitutional challenges and one statutory challenge from 2025. That was the case heard by the Virginia Supreme Court in oral argument on Monday, April 27th. The 26 violations were ruled on. the day after the referendum by a trial court in Southwest Virginia, Judge Hurley, who enjoined the certification of the election, meaning he stopped the counting of the votes, he stopped the

state board from certifying the outcome. And that was directly appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court, as one would expect. And what one would also expect is that the Supreme Court would stay the trial court's injunction pending the outcome of the case. That would be the normally expected behavior. But the day after the oral argument in the 2025 case, remember the injunction is for violations in the 26 case, not to, I'm trying to simplify this.

The day after the oral argument in the 2025 case, the Supreme Court denied, Attorney General Virginia, Attorney General Jay Jones's request to lift the injunction. And I interpret that to be a strong suggestion, no more than a suggestion. There's nothing definite about this, but a strong suggestion that the Virginia Supreme Court plans to throw out the referendum. And so they've left that injunction in place so as not to start the sort of alternative election machinery, if you will, based on the new maps. The day that all machinery would have started would have been today under House Bill 29,

as you and I talk Friday, May 1st. And but that's been enjoined. So that's frozen in place. We still have our six, five maps. Some of the fairest maps in the country, which would have flipped to some of the most extremely gerrymandered in the country if the Democrats prevail on this. And so that's kind of the order of events. We're waiting for an order, a final order one way or the other in the 2025 violations. If I had to guesstimate, I would guesstimate. Today is possible.

But next week is when I would expect to see a. order disposing of the case, meaning a final order. And I think that final order is going to throw the referendum out because of just how egregious the violations were. And you asked what those were. So 2025, like a lot of states, we're not unique. To amend the Virginia Constitution, our General Assembly has to pass a proposed amendment at one point in time through the General Assembly. And then there has to be an intervening election. to elect a new general assembly. And then the new general assembly

has to pass the exact same proposed amendment. So those are the rules. And when I say rules, I mean in the requirements of our state constitution. So the Democrats gave us a 45-day election last time they had the governorship in both houses of our legislature. So in 2025, the election that elected Abigail Spanberger,

governor began on September 19th of 2025. Well, the General Assembly, in its finite wisdom, did not move on this amendment until late October. They didn't pass it until Halloween. How appropriate is that? Yeah, right. Monstrous. Yes.

And that was after a million, over a million Virginians had already voted in the 2025 election. and they want to treat that as the intervening election. And their argument is basically, well, intervening election just means election day. Now, their lawyer couldn't answer the question from Justice West Russell who asked, well, what if the General Assembly passed it at 6 p.m. on election day? Our polls are open till 7. Would that be good enough? And in fact, the lawyer for the Attorney General of Virginia couldn't answer that question.

No mention of the Constitution or the laws. And even when CNN would press him on the ballot language, on the no 90 days going by, on the intervening, he wouldn't answer any of it. And here in the very first question, his own lawyer yanked the rug out from under the only public explanation he had been. giving for the six days since the referendum passed. Amazing. So it was that was, I have to say, that was actually a moment of entertainment. Yeah, it really was. These guys caught up in, you know, their own language, their own comments.

And we've seen that over and over again. By the way, speaking of their own comments, if Virginia does not, the Supreme Court does not allow this to go forward, I believe Jay Jones, may pull out his two bullets and we could have trouble here. So watch out for that. Yeah, this is the same attorney general who, you know, was preaching violence and got himself into trouble for some emails as he's, you know, talking about trying to control violence. But that's a different subject for a different day.

Final question on the Virginia side. all of this doesn't even get to the very confusing language of the ballot. And that's what the judge in Tazwell County has talked about as well. The language on the ballot was, well, it was news speak. It was Orwellian, you know, if you believe in fair elections, well, this map would not deliver fair elections. It would deliver a 10-1 advantage in the very, Virginia House delegation for Democrats. What do you think of the language question?

Well, the language is pretty extreme. So some states have laws requiring balanced language. Our state requires plain English. It's called a plain English rule, not surprisingly, perhaps. And the judge in Southwest Virginia, this is one of the 2026 violations, found that the language was so extreme, it was so misleading that it violated the plain English rule. A regular reading of it was completely misleading and confusing, according to the judge. And a lot of people have zeroed in on this.

Let me read it for your listeners. This is how the question read, on the ballot, should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily, adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia's standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census. Yes or no. Well, yes, Ken. Can I would, how can you not want fair elections, Ken?

I can't believe that they, anybody wouldn't. If it came down to it, our side could produce voters who would say, I thought, I was voting for fair maps. I didn't realize I was voting for this 10 to one extreme item. So, you know, the judge's position that this was misleading is a very strong one. And again, this is a very tough thing for Virginia to defend after the fact. And I really feel like this radical Marxist General Assembly we have now really just took a gangster view of this. They just bowled through there. They didn't care what the rules were, and they were going to bully the court after. Now, I do think they expected to win by 10 or 15 points, and it might have been a little easier as a

simple human matter to bully the court if you'd won by a lot. But they didn't win by a lot. They outspent our side by three or four to one, and they still only won by three points. I'm going to kind of retweet this myself. I'm going to repeat this myself. I'm going to repeat. post the ballot language so people can see it more easily in my Twitter feed at Ken Cuccinelli where I've been commenting pretty heavily on this case.

Americans have never been this pessimistic. The Watchdog on Wall Street podcast with Chris Lisa Murkowski. Every day, Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the economy and how it affects your wallet. A record 54% of U.S. consumers now say their financials. situation is worse compared to a year ago due to higher prices. That's up 900% in five years and higher now than it was in the 70s. Whether it's happening in D.C. or down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially. Be informed. Check out the Watchdog on Wall Street podcast with Chris Lisa Murkowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast.

Yeah, it is amazing, too, that you have Jay Jones and you have the Marxist Assembly and everybody on the left saying, well, you can see the significant win we just had. That shows you. And I mean, it is disingenuous, just like the language of the ballot, just like the party itself. Our guest today is Ken Cuchinelli, National Chairman of the Election Transparency Initiative. Ken, of course, the former Attorney General of Virginia, and much going on there, but plenty going on elsewhere. This was a big week, Louisiana v. Calais, huge ruling that ended discrimination in map making. And Samuel Alito had some extremely powerful language, I thought, in the 6-3 majority that he wrote, noting that allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a

departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context. He went on to say, the Constitution almost never permits the federal government or a state to discriminate on the basis of race, such as where it is improperly used to draw maps that intentionally dilute or otherwise harm minority voters. And this was indeed the case in Louisiana, where you had a court demanding that the state create a second black only district, which, you know, really does drive home the point that this, there is discrimination in all kinds of different forms, not just in the traditional sense. What did you think about this ruling from the court? Well, first of all, I don't think it was surprising at all. Some people on the left may have been shocked by it,

but I don't even think they were surprised. This court has, has been moving in the direction of being against discrimination more and more as time has gone on, including the Voting Rights Act. And they said the Voting Rights Act is there and available and legitimate and viable to attack intentional discrimination, where you're trying to discriminate against particularly black voters. That's what the Voting Rights Act was originally for. And that continues. The dissent and the left says, well, that's important.

possible. We can't be held to required of having to prove that people were actually discriminating. Well, wait a minute. Why not? This is this, to most Americans who have this explained, it's just plain old common sense. So, you know, common sense breaking out is, I know, very offensive to the left.

The truth is their opponent. And this Supreme Court is being very blunt with its view of the Voting Rights Act. It's there and we have come a long way, baby, so to speak. And look, I was the Attorney General of a Southern state, Virginia, that had a history of actually using its laws to suppress black vote. Yeah. We had work to do. And we were one of the reasons the Voting Rights Act was needed in 1916.

And as this Supreme Court has said over 10 years ago in the Jefferson County case, Congress, when they reauthorized it, provided no evidence. There's nothing in the record to suggest that systemic racism, and we had that in Virginia, existed any longer or was ongoing anywhere in America. That was over a decade ago. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that here more than a decade later, they say, yes, you can always. prosecute intentional discrimination. You can challenge lines drawn to disadvantage black voters because they're black voters, by the way. You can't just, it's not a violation of the Voting Rights Act to draw lines that will use the word discriminate, but that, no, I won't use the word discriminate, that black voters don't like, because they also happen to be Democrat voters,

put more clearly, political gerrymandering is not racial discrimination. And this court in other cases has made clear there is no federal standard to bar political gerrymandering. For example, like the entire New England congressional delegation. Exactly. Or Illinois. We can take a look in the Midwest. why do I suddenly feel like a Virginia slim cigarette?

Maybe it was the advertising that we've come a long way, baby. And we have, definitely. And so I'm curious as I look at the California maps that were this whole process, once again, like Virginia pushed to eliminate a referendum that had created, an amendment to the California Constitution that had created an independent commission. No, we're going to temporarily, as you noted before, we'll temporarily change that because Donald Trump wanted Texas to redraw its map. So we're going to do that and we're going to do it even more so.

And when they did that, Ken, they ended up doing exactly what this court says is not allowed. They ended up putting Hispanics in black districts, and so that they used, they clearly used color and race to affect their map drawing in a number of districts. What do you think this Louisiana v. Calais means for those California gerrymandered maps? So Calais really just unshackles states. Understand, you know, as an AG who had to go through preclearance, the last preclearance with DOJ. The Voting Rights Act required you to consider race and punished intentional discrimination, which is consideration of race. I mean, and legislators for a long time have never grasped how do you do this? And it's always been this shot in the dark to a certain degree.

There have been these vague guidelines provided by various courts and they differed from court to court. But how do you draw maps that don't factor race in as the priority? when you say Virginia, when you're required to draw majority black districts and so forth. Well, that era of confusion is over. State legislatures can draw districts so long as they do not discriminate against black voters or any other minority voters. Voter rights act has been expanded. And that's the key. And so plaintiffs will have to come in and show that maps they don't like,

were the product of intentional discrimination based on race. I noticed today CNN was reporting that the gains with black voters that Donald Trump made in 2024 have held that the margin, the Democrat registration versus Republican registration margin of black voters is at the lowest point it's been since 2000. before 2006. That's reporting from CNN. And that, again, Trump's gains in the black community have held. Now, it's still disproportionately as an entire demographic voting more Democrat. But it's not just this 90-10 monolith any longer. And so one of the things the Supreme Court said is, You have to separate out political considerations from racial considerations.

And one of the things that the Democrat Party has taken massive advantage of is conflating, actually separating entirely, being black with being a Democrat. And so they draw districts and they force districts to be drawn based on race, which ends up being an outstanding proxy for drawing Democrat districts as a mandate of the Voting Rights Act. So that's why they're really mad is they lost their proxy

by which they gain seats they wouldn't otherwise have. There's probably a dozen seats in the South that if the South were drawing maps like New England, the Democrats wouldn't have. Mike Johnson wouldn't have a four-vote margin. He'd have a 32-vote margin. The census is part of that as well. Well, yeah, that's a whole other problem.

That's a whole other topic. We'll have to address it a later time. But back to California, here's the question that I have. It is in that language. It is also in the intent. But what if California Democrats say, well, we didn't really try to smash, you know, this Hispanic population and with this black population, which is, by the way, another case in Texas. We weren't doing that because we intentionally

were trying to be racist. We were just trying to be nakedly political. You know, we have a better chance of these folks voting for us. They traditionally have, and that's our motivation. In essence, can, can they just lie and say, well, no, we didn't, we weren't trying to be racist. That's a byproduct of this, certainly, but we were just trying to be political. Yes. Well, not, well, never admitting it. Yeah. You know, that's an important part of it.

We're never admitting it. So that's, that's, that's something I think to look for as we, we move forward. Because one thing, we know for certain the left, which is, you know, the radical left is the Democratic Party in this country. It's like rust. It never sleeps. It will continue to work on all kinds of manipulate the system any way they can. Which brings us to one of the biggest lies that they tell when it comes to voter verification. and it involves race. And it really is, to me, a disgusting argument that they use to make sure that they can keep voter verification,

voter ID and U.S. citizenship documentary proof out of, you know, the election process. They can keep election integrity out of the election process. They say, well, you know, there are. millions of black people and millions of women who cannot get an ID, which most of us look at and say, that is preposterous on its face because those millions of people are using ID every day for, you name the reason. What do you think of that argument moving forward as it relates to, you know, the Save America Act, which we'll get into momentarily? Well, you know, it is easy to slip right into this Save America Act.

Then again, this common sense and the abandonment of it by the radical left. And frankly, if you try to advance common sense, and I do this as the chairman of the election transparency initiative all the time, voter ID, like you say, even back to that radical right-wing organization, CNN, you know, their last poll on the subject. showed 71% of Democrat voters, not of everyone, of Democrat voters, support voter ID, and, if I remember correctly, confirming U.S. citizenship to vote. The only place, these common sense ideas for securing your election and preserving the sanctity of your citizenship are not overwhelmingly popular is the United States Senate. Yeah, right. That's it.

You can literally have this vote at a random pick your locality randomly, it wouldn't work everywhere, but at your average Democrat party meeting, and they'll vote for it. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. This is in 80, 20, in some places, a 90-20 issue. And yet you have the Democrats fighting like hell

to stop it. And I've asked this question like any mediocre attorney, and I'm not one, I just play one on the radio, you've got to know the answer to the question before you ask it. And I do. But the question is this, why are they doing this if it's so popular with their own constituency?

So one thing that people often don't realize is just because something's popular in a poll doesn't mean it will move votes. I'll use a Virginia example. When I was in the state Senate 20 years ago, if you asked voters, you know, what are they, what's the most important issue to them? Transportation, because we have traffic in Northern Virginia, blew the doors off the polling. I mean, just through the roof. And yet how many people decided their vote based on transportation? Very, very few, actually. They decided on other things.

And so, yes, these are very popular. And that's important to know. And I'm sure it factors into how people vote and who they vote for. I will tell you that we have found that the place where you can move the needle in an election on election issues is primaries, not general elections. Yeah, I bet. Yeah. That's where you get your most, your most passionate voters to come out and they're passionate about particular. And you can have, I mean, especially on the Republican side, you know, squishy Republicans, they just want to do Chamber of Commerce things. They don't want to

deal with things where the media will be mad at them, like securing elections. or keeping men out of women's bathrooms to go back 10 years, et cetera. They don't want to do the icky things. Those icky things are where culture and security within the country come from. So that's something to keep in mind. And so it's an important reason for all of your listeners to participate in those primaries. If you care about election security, usually the place you can have the most impact. on it with your vote is the primary, not the general. You bet. You use the term, and so I will use it as well.

What do you think of those squishy Republicans? Because that term, squishy describes a majority of Republicans in the U.S. Senate who refuse to do if in the election integrity circles, for those who value election integrity, they refuse to do the right thing here. And you've got John Thune, Senate Majority Leaders saying, well, our hands are tied. We're trying. Look at this. We debate every once in a while the Save America Act, which again, for those scoring along at home, really asked two very simple things. Again, two things that are extremely popular with the electorate. One is that you have a photo ID to vote an election. The other is that you prove that you're a U.S. citizen to vote in U.S. elections. Not hard, not difficult, but they have.

have struggled with their squishiness, it seems to me. Where do you think this is going ultimately because it looks to me? I don't have a lot of confidence in this Senate. I'll just put it that way.

Yeah. Well, I don't have a ton either. If I were a betting man, I wouldn't be betting in favor of this. But I do have hope. Unfortunately, I think the momentum on this issue was before they went on vacation. And if they were really serious about it, they'd have stuck around. And when I see people like Senator Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who I usually appreciate very much,

talking about doing this in reconciliation, when he knows very well, this cannot be done in reconciliation. The burden. He thinks we're too stupid to know that. I get headshakingly disappointed in a senator that I often. have a great deal of appreciation for. Yeah, I don't blame you for that because Senator Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a breath of fresh air

in so many different areas of governance in common sense. And he's highly quotable as a journalist. That's always written, too, of course. But no, you're absolutely right. And so here's the ultimate problem with that, Ken, as I see it. If this squishy Republican Senate,

cannot get this done. How much is that going to depress turnout among conservatives, election integrity, loving conservatives? Yeah, it's, I will say this positive thing. Since 2020, the entire right of center world, and it continues to this day, has been, been more unified in making gains in improving the quality of our elections, that doesn't mean any advantage for the right, unlike how the left looks at it. It just means making them more accountable, more accessible, and more transparent and secure. I have never seen not just the conservative coalition, but the establishment people too.

stick with an issue this long with as little internal fighting. We're not satisfied with the establishmentarians' weakness on the SAVE Act. And it's so critical. It would literally bring up the quality of elections across America overnight, without imposing really much of anything. on any of the states. I mean, two-thirds of the states already have voter ID requirements. And it's already illegal for non-citizens to vote, but the states have no way to enforce it because of screw-ups in federal law and federal court rulings. The federal government is the problem on that.

Only Washington can fix that. Only Washington can fix that. And so they should. I think what we have seen is this Congress, this Republican-controlled Congress, hoping that the Supreme Court would fix it. And, of course, the Supreme Court has, and just recently, as we talked about in Calais, just fixed a long-term problem with federal law, the Voting Regulation Act. You know, those sorts of things the Supreme Court does, but in the long game. And I guess my final question for you is this. What does the world look like? What does the Republic look like if Democrats win in the midterms?

Because they're already talking this week about packing the courts and all these sorts of things. You know, if they want to start proposing those kinds of things, then they're going to reveal to everyone what they're like. They're going to have this internal fight and it won't, and it'll be very public, because Donald Trump will veto all these, of course. It will, they'll show the world what they'll do if they have three-way control, House, Senate, and presidency. And that'll be a factor in the 28 election. And then what will happen is even Democrats who get elected, to do it, many of the close ones will, have to commit to not doing these things. Now, we just saw Abigail Spanberger tell us how against

gerrymandering she was and then come in and do it. So these are no guarantees. But some people take that more seriously than obviously Abigail Spanberger does. And so it'll be very interesting to see how that plays out. These folks cannot restrain themselves. If they were strategic, like China is strategic. Like Iran, as evil as they are, is strategic. They think long term. And they would have wait, they would wait till past the 2028 election, try to win it, and then do these things. But they cannot help themselves.

Their base is so rabid foaming at the mouth. You know, their brain hardly prioritizes. They can't keep things in order. That's how they did. That's what happened with the judicial filibuster. and that's how they lost it for Supreme Court justices as they blew it for everything else. And of course, the Republicans would get rid of it when it was convenient for their needs. And then there'd be no defense on the part of the Democrats.

And so that two and three and four year unrolling of these issues is going to be important. The timeline will be important. and that the people of America will see the insanity. And you see it in a way, it's one thing to propose a bill today. It goes nowhere. But if the Dems control the House and those bills, a PAC Supreme Court bill comes out of the House, and even Hakeem Jeffries is talking about stuff like this,

so it's not like the Speaker's going to stop it. They'll send it over to the Senate. It won't go anywhere in the Senate. But America will know this isn't just hyperbole by Republicans. This is what these Menshevik Bolsheviks have in mind. Indeed. And that's a scary thought enough to keep you up at night, hopefully to get you out to the polls. I'll tell you what, there's so much on this front.

And you folks at the Election Transparency Initiative are doing so much on this. If you wouldn't mind just a quick explainer on what the Election Transparency Initiative does, I know it's all in the name. It is. Electiontransparency.org and people can follow me at Ken Cucinelli on Twitter, and I've covered these topics all the time. And we have been for over five years seeking to improve elections with things like voter ID, getting rid of Zuckerbucks. Now over 28 states have gotten rid of Zuckerbucks.

Yeah. Privately funded election offices that work to the advantage of Democrats. It's like paying the basketball officials. if the UNC played UVA and we were the road team, I went to UVA, so we is UVA here. I figured as much, yeah. Yes. And, you know, if UNC was paying the officials, everybody would know that, or at least would have grave doubts about the officiating. Well, that's what Zuckerbux was.

And it, in fact, by itself, explains the outcome of the 2020 election. It flipped enough states and votes in targeted areas. to hand the election to Joe Biden. And that's without any of the other problems of 2020, like the Hunter Biden laptop censorship, so many elected officials, not following their own state's laws using COVID as the excuse. But we lead both at the federal and state levels, efforts,

to get things like the SAVE Act. We've advanced Zuckerbucks, including in referenda, participating in those, and it's never lost when on the ballot to clean up elections one state at a time to make them more transparent. As you note, our name suggests, we would like you to be able to see literally

every single thing in your state's election except how your neighbors mark their ballot. Right down to the computer code of the computers used to tally votes or in more electronically dependent states, like Arizona to store ballot images in Georgia and similarly. We believe in open source architecture, which doesn't exist anywhere yet.

No more black boxes owned by Dominion Systems or ESS. We should be able to see all of that code. And geeks should be able to load it themselves on their own machines and run it themselves to make sure it will work correctly. and we have pursued that for over five years and continue to do that with great success. And we would appreciate it if folks would join that effort at election transparency.org. And thanks for having me. Absolutely.

And you guys are doing a great job, a great job, part of the whole election integrity movement that really has grown up around the awfulness that was 2020. And we could spend another hour. talking all about that. But the good news is through the work of the election transparency initiative and others, we are seeing more confidence restored in elections. That's the most important thing because election integrity is coming back to our elections. Thanks to my guest today, Ken Cuccinelli, national chairman of the election transparency initiative. You've been listening to another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, Senior Elections Correspondent,

at the Federalist. We'll be back soon with more. Until then, stay lovers of freedom and anxious for the friend.