what the Democrats were.

And in some ways that's normal in midterms You look back at midterms and presidents, incumbent presidents have suffered pretty significant losses, including Obama and others.

We're talking about 60, 70 losses at the midterm.

So I think that one of the issues is how do we get the vote out in a midterm election you know the president is not on the ballot and you need to engage these voters this is more of a political question for uh folks from a voter integrity perspective voters came out and they voted bipartisan in a bipartisan manner for those election integrity measures that were on the ballot they didn't know yeah they did and that just shows that it's a bipartisan uh

Is that fair?

I think that's right.

Look, Nevada passed for the second time a voter ID law, not just for in-person, but also for absentee.

They're going to be stricter requirements.

So what, if any, recourse does the incumbent, Daniel Sullivan, have if he ends up losing this race, especially potentially because of the interference by this stalking horse candidate?

Well, I think he's got a couple of options directly for him.

I mean, the incumbent has the opportunity to Now are both candidates have the opportunity if they're if it's close enough to file a contest.

You try to make the case that the misleading of the public resulted in and enough balance that that those balance should it should not be counted, for example.

Now, You know, it is unfortunate you have a very close race, and the candidate, the second Dan Sullivan, has received like 1,300 or 1,500 votes, which is a lot more than the margin between the two major candidates.

But, of course, we're going to have to wait quite a while.

Alaska is going to go through a process where – This ranked choice voting, if someone does not receive over 50%, they're going to start going through the process of ranked choices.

a Cowboys

And Don, can you help us understand what type of a situation would require either party to then turn to their legal teams?

Well, sometimes during the course of the day, there's machines that might go down or there's something that's sort of violating the law, for example.

Perhaps there's people within the 100-foot zone, if that's the place where you can't campaign.

There's going to be certain laws that some observers or citizens might violate.

And then you have to call the election office and get them engaged to sort of make sure all the polling places are operating within the law.

You know, for example, there could be a disturbance at one polling place.

And obviously, the political parties want to make sure that it doesn't interfere with voting.

How far have we come and where would you like to see us go by the next presidential election?

Is cheating at scale possible in the United States, Don? The first question I'm just going to ask is at scale cheating possible?

Well, I guess it's theoretically possible.

I mean, the benefit of having such a decentralized system and different counties and elections being run at the local level, it sort of contains sort of large scale cheating.

You know, and I think that when you even talking about California, when you have such millions and millions of voters, we are talking about 20,000, 20,000 potential noncitizens that have received the ballot and have returned it.

I think that it's the close races where there's cheating that may make a difference, and then voter confidence is shot.

It's sort of like the experience we had in Florida in 2000 where 500 votes decided who was going to be the leader of the free world.

You have to have a system in place that reduces the irregularities to a minimum.

What can the Justice Department do or what is it doing and how should we feel a little bit better maybe about these upcoming elections? Because they have they have blanketed the United States in key swing areas with with election monitors, things like that.

Sure seems to have happened a lot.

Well, it does happen a lot.

And that's because the states and they've admitted this.

They don't really have a way of verifying citizenship or confirming citizenship.

And so you're going to have a lot of noncitizens added to the voter rolls.

And so what the Trump administration has been trying to do is provide support through the same program.

It's a DHS program.

I mean, they may be voting themselves out of a job if they find themselves on the wrong side of that.

What is the Justice Department done here? What's the reality behind this?

Well, they really should be applauded because what they're really trying to do is say no one's outside of federal law.

Federal law requires that non-citizens cannot vote.

And the Trump administration, the Department of Justice, actually provided to California evidence of that these individuals were non-citizens that had been mailed ballots.

And so they're simply asking the court at this point to separate those ballots and have California investigate them with the evidence that the federal government provided.

I think this really puts California officials in a tough position because they now have the evidence in front of them.

They use a lot of this federal evidence and other situations within California government to confirm eligibility with the SAVE program, it's called.

And if they continue on and allow non-American citizens to vote, they can be held criminally liable? Is that your understanding of this, sir?

What is the Justice Department done here? What's the reality behind this?

Well, they really should be applauded because what they're really trying to do is say no one's outside of federal law.

Federal law requires that non-citizens cannot vote.

And the Trump administration, the Department of Justice actually provided to California evidence of that these individuals were non-citizens that had been mailed ballots.

And so they're simply asking the court at this point to separate those ballots and have California investigate them with the evidence that the federal government provided.

I think this really puts California officials in a tough position because they now have the evidence in front of them.

They use a lot of this federal evidence in other situations within California government to confirm eligibility with the SAVE program, it's called.

And if they continue on and allow non-American citizens to vote, they can be held criminally liable? Is that your understanding of this, sir?

Right, it helps them get reelected, Don, doesn't it?

it?It does.

And so when voter verification comes around, well, we're just not going to use the save, uh, program.

So you, you, you obviously have a problem here.

And, uh, it's, it's so pleasing to see the Trump administration be this aggressive because federal law requires that citizens vote and non-citizens not be able to vote, and this is a fundamental qualification to vote.

Being a citizen is a fundamental qualification.

And California's basically telling the federal court, "Well, we just don't have the ability to do that." Just think about that r- that admission.

Right?

Am I wrong here?

No, I don't think so.

I mean, look, the lieutenant governor, obviously, as many secretaries of state or chief election officials, are very protective of their elections and of their turf.

Right.

But in this case, the federal government was able to identify hundreds of potential non-citizens on the voter rolls.

She even admitted in the interview that they actually conducted this audit.

It took a number of months to do, and they identified over 50 non-citizens on the voter rolls, some of which had voted, and some of them are still investigating.

Don, what do you think? Yeah.

What are you looking at? Where are we staying today? And then what is your big concern? Are you seeing some stuff out there that concerns you?

Well, I think from the integrity perspective, the big issue has been, you know, the Department of Justice and really the Trump administration is simply saying to states, look, we're going to provide this information to you on non-citizens and we expect you to identify and remove them.

And they've done this in a couple of states.

One was North Carolina.

North Carolina sent letters to over a thousand potential non-citizens and said, look, you need to either volunteer to remove yourself or you need to provide proof of citizenship.

And so those letters went out.

And then you saw this letter that went to California and gave them 48 hours to, you know, have a plan to either identify or remove these non citizens on the roads.

So whether somebody's moved or not, a lot of times they may not know if somebody's moved.

What are you looking at? Where are we standing today? And wh- and then, what is your big concern? Are you seeing some stuff out there that concerns you?

Well, I think from the integrity perspective, uh, the big issue has been, uh, you know, the Department of Justice and really the Trump administration is simply saying to states, "Look, we're gonna provide this information to you on non-citizens, and we expect you to, to identify and remove them." And they've done this in a couple of states.

One was North Carolina.

North Carolina sent letters to over 1,000 potential non-citizens, said, "Look, you need to either volunteer to remove yourself, or you need to provide proof of citizenship." And so those letters went out, and then you saw this letter that went to California and gave them 48 hours to, um, you know, have a plan to either identify or remove these non- non-citizens on the rolls.

They actually provided it to California and said, "Look, if you don't act on these, uh, we're gonna, we're gonna sue you." So that's, that's what's going on, you know, from an integrity perspective, which is, uh, you know, quite, uh, quite interesting.

Um, but I think generally speaking, um, you know, I worked in elections.

I think right now the train has left the station.

Am I, am I wrong by saying that?

What are you looking at? Where are we staying today? And then what is your big concern? Are you seeing some stuff out there that concerns you?

Well, I think from the integrity perspective, the big issue has been, you know, the Department of Justice and really the Trump administration is simply saying the states, look, we're going to provide this information to you on non-citizens and we expect you to identify and remove them.

And they've done this in a couple of states.

One was North Carolina.

North Carolina sent letters to over a thousand potential non-citizens and said, look, you need to either volunteer, remove yourself, Or you need to provide proof of citizenship.

And so those letters went out.

And then you saw this letter that went to California and gave them 48 hours to have a plan to either identify or remove these non-citizens on the roads.

So rather somebody's moved or not, a lot of times they may not know if somebody's moved.

As we are now past Labor Day, and a lot of this is starting to kind of come down the pike for what really matters, where are we at in terms of election integrity in 2026? And what's your general feeling for how trustworthy the outcomes will be in November this year?

Well, generally, I feel good about it.

I mean, we're now 35 days before the election, so the operations of elections have already started.

Ballots are going out to many.

Polling places are being prepared.

Poll workers trained.

I think from an election integrity perspective, it was unfortunate that the SAVE program that the states were using to audit their voter registration rolls was basically turned off by the DC District Court and the Circuit Court there in the District of Columbia.

So question, how many of the seven swing states have adopted these programs? Because I think that's really where this comes into play is in those critically important, very close, you know, down to the wire kind of states that we watch on election night.

What are some of the complications that lead to these delays?

Well, I wish they were complications.

They're actually sort of policies that are t- you know, in place by legislators.

I, I...

This is a really a system that was designed by politicians for politicians.

For example, they will mail a ballot out to every single registrant in the state of California, and they really don't have a deadline on Election Day.

You can return that with a stamp or, um, some sort of notation, uh, prior to, uh, Election Day, and it can be counted after Election Day.

Bring us up to speed about where things stand exactly, uh, as it pertains to mail-in ballots today.

What are some of the complications that lead to these delays?

Well, I wish there were complications.

There are actually sort of policies that are in place by legislators.

This is really a system that was designed by politicians for politicians.

For example, they will mail a ballot out to every single registrant in the state of California.

And they really don't have a deadline on Election Day.

You can return that with a stamp or some sort of notation prior to Election Day, and it can be counted after Election Day.

Bring us up to speed about where things stand exactly as it pertains to mail-in ballots today.

As we are now past Labor Day, and a lot of this is starting to kind of come down the pike for what really matters, where are we at in terms of election integrity in 2026, and what's your general feeling for how trustworthy the, uh, the outcomes will be, uh, in November this year?

Well, generally I feel good about it.

I mean, we're now 35 days before the election, so the operations of elections have already started.

Ballots are going out to many.

Polling places are being prepared, poll workers trained.

I think from an election integrity perspective, it was unfortunate, uh, that the SAVE program that the states were using to audit their voter registration rolls was, uh, basically turned off by the DC, uh, District Court and the, the Circuit Court there in, in the District of Columbia.

And the Supreme Court just turned that on, but we are of course very close to the election.

critically important, very close, you know, down to the wire kinda states that we watch on election night.

What do you think? Do you think mail-in voting can ever actually be done and not be corrupted?

Well, I mean, I think it's an option in many states because voters are, you know, they may move or they're absent or they're even overseas.

And so I served in the military, you know, so there's always going to be some need for absentee voting.

I think that's in federal law.

And there's just good practices because it is out of the hands of the voter.

And so you have to implement strong security procedures.

Look, the Carter-Baker Commission really, now this is about 20, 25 years ago, and it was one of the last sort of bipartisan commissions that looked at this.

Is that going too far for me to say it or no?

Can you talk to me a little bit about our states that are in the listening area here in the Midwest regarding the integrity of their election systems?

Well, when you talk about little Illinois, um, it's actually, you know, kind of low in the, in the, uh, in the rankings, it's basically number 38 and there's a lot to, there's a lot of areas of improvement.

I mean, I think the big one, and it's basically the issue that you were talking about on the lead in here is they really have no measures for verification of citizenship.

And so when I looked at the numbers, they get like zero out of 13 points.

Because they don't use any of the systems that would help with verification.

And they don't have documentary proof of citizenship, obviously.

So there are some ups and downs that Illinois, for example, might have.

Really? might happen a little bit what is what is the biggest need what would be the biggest success maybe it's the Save Act maybe it's something on a state-by-state basis what needs to happen in order inch to ensure that regardless of who the people want that the people who are voting are actually entitled to the votes that they're casting

Can you talk to me a little bit about our states that are in the listening area here in the Midwest regarding the integrity of their election systems?

Well, when you talk about little Illinois, um, it's actually, you know, kind of low in the, in the, uh, in the rankings, it's basically number 38 and there's a lot to, there's a lot of areas of improvement.

I mean, I think the big one, and it's basically the issue that you were talking about on the lead in here is they really have no measures for verification of citizenship.

And so when I looked at the numbers, they get like zero out of 13 points.

because they don't they don't use any of the systems that would help with verification and they they they don't have documentary proof citizenship obviously so there are some ups and downs that illinois for example might have but they just really just refuse to verify citizenship which is the most fundamental qualification to vote it's the most fundamental you know requirement to vote um you know we may move here and there and there might be a question about whether or not I'm a legally Illinois voter or Florida voter because I'm moving back and forth, but this is fundamental.

Either you're a citizen or you're not.

And so that's how Illinois has done.

What? might happen a little bit um what is what is the biggest need what would be the biggest success maybe it's the save act maybe it's something on a state-by-state basis what needs to happen in order in to ensure that regardless of who the people want that the people who are voting are actually entitled to the votes that they're casting

Can you talk to me a little bit about our states that are in the listening area here in the Midwest regarding the integrity of their election systems?

Well, when you talk about Little Illinois, it's actually kind of low in the rankings.

It's basically number 38.

And there's a lot of areas of improvement.

I mean, I think the big one, and it's basically the issue that you were talking about on the lead-in here, is they really have no measures for verification of citizenship.

And so when I looked at the numbers, they get like zero out of 13 points for Because they don't use any of the systems that would help with verification.

And they don't have documentary proof of citizenship, obviously.

might happen a little bit what is what is the biggest need what would be the biggest success maybe it's the Save Act maybe it's something on a state-by-state basis what needs to happen in order inch to ensure that regardless of who the people want that the people who are voting are actually entitled to the votes that they're casting

How, in fact, do we get free and fair elections at this point in our voting history here in the United States?

Well, with regards to the mail ballot executive order and USPS, I mean, this really is sort of a factor.

USPS is trying to provide some rules, some security.

And I like to call the USPS the Wild West because things are sort of enforced in different ways around the country.

And so when you have the USPS, it's a national organization, obviously, that delivers our mail.

And shouldn't we all have the same sort of security and transparency features that for our mail ballots.

If a state is going to use that, they have to sort of meet the requirements of USPS.

Well, Don, this requires the cooperation of the state and the Board of Elections within the state, right? And given the state of Illinois, I don't see that cooperation happening under a Trump administration.

The voters have to be, uh, vetted, if you will, before we're gonna send ballots from their house anywhere." What do you make of it?

it?Well, uh, reading the New York Times this morning, their major concern and their basic arguments against, uh, the implementation of this rule before the election was solely because election officials aren't prepared, and this would be a burden on election officials.

To me, what that, uh, that really a- advocates what I've been saying for a while, is that I don't see major constitutional issues with this rule or what the USPS regulation does.

And so there's a clear path for implementation prior to the November election.

And look, election officials and states have had opportunities to prepare for this.

They should've been preparing, and in some cases, unfortunately they have not been preparing.

But we have ...

Uh, and in fact, if you go down to your county clerk and say, "I need an absentee ballot," and you give them your ID, which I have to do where I live, you're good to go, right?

Does the decision hold? It's not a permanent decision at this point, correct?

Right, it's really sort of a procedural first step.

The substance of the issue will be decided, I'm sure, by the Supreme Court at some point very soon.

But the issue really is I think it has a really good chance because it really does respect the rule, the proposed rule by USPS, a federal agency.

It respects the state's rights to administer elections, but it also raises the level of security.

And as we've seen with bipartisan commissions and the courts, they recognize that mail balloting has a little bit more security issues And so it's the least secure way of voting.

It is an option for voters in many states increasingly, but I think the Supreme Court will find that this is a reasonable burden on the states for the increased security of now balloting.

Your thoughts?

Don, as the person affirming the topic, I'm going to ask you to go first.

Well, thank you, Henry, and, and thank you, Steven.

Um, and so my belief is that the SAVE Act, uh, the Act of Verifying Citizenship, is necessary for election integrity, and I take, uh, the approach, if we step back for a minute, the big answer to the question why is it's because the American people demand it.

They, they really, in many ways, um, wanna have confidence in our election system.

It's absolutely necessary for our republic that citizens have sort of a trust that their voting system is working and verifying registrants to vote, and that their ballot is counted.

And when non-citizens, which there's general agreement, and there's actually a federal law that says that citizens should not vote, shall not vote, uh, in elections, that that is actually taking place and that that is something that their government is verifying and confirming that non-citizens aren't voting.

And so we could argue about the scope of the problem, but there is a problem.

So I guess I would turn to you and say, you know, i- is, is there anything really different from 2024? And I, I assume you have some measure of confidence in the 2024 election, or you think that it was at least lawfully accurately decided.

Don, as the person affirming the topic, I'm going to ask you to go first.

Well, thank you, Henry, and thank you, Stephen.

And so my belief is that the SAVE Act, the Act of Verifying Citizenship, is necessary for election integrity.

And I think the approach, if we step back for a minute, the big answer to the question why is, It's because the American people demand it.

They really, in many ways, want to have confidence in our election system.

It's absolutely necessary for our republic that citizens have a sort of a trust that their voting system is working and verifying registrants to vote and that their ballot is counted.

And when non-citizens, which there's general agreement, And there's actually a federal law that says that citizens should not vote, shall not vote in elections, that that is actually taking place and that that is something that their government is verifying and confirming that non-citizens aren't voting.

And when they do find those, they find that it's often the case of government error, such as the case with New Jersey, rather than some non-citizen purposely trying to break the law and circumvent the process such that he or she can vote.