tv Washington Journal 01142022 CSPAN January 14, 2022 7:00am-10:02am EST
ken cuccinelli, a former trump administration official who now serves as chair of the election transparency initiative. later, we continue with naacp president and ceo derrick johnson. host: good morning on this friday, january 14. we wrap up this week in washington with your top news. (202) 748-8000, democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can join the conversation by sending a text with your first name, city and state at (202) 748-8003, or post your comments on facebook.com/c-span. you can send a tweet at the
handle @cspanwj. some headlines dominating the newspapers. the supreme court's decision yesterday, ruling against president biden's vaccine mandate for large employers but allowing his mandate for health care workers who received medicare and medicaid funding to remain in place. there was a voting rights push this week in washington by the president. it crumbled, according to the new york times, when senator kyrsten sinema of arizona came to the floor and said she would not support changing the rules for those pieces of legislation. talks between the u.s. and russia happening this week in switzerland and brussels. no ground for further security discussion, according to the washington post. the january 6 committee asked
for representative kevin mccarthy's cooperation. he rejected that. this morning usa today, they note the january 6 committee has subpoenaed social media companies as it investigates the role of disinformation in the capitol attack. let's hear from senator kyrsten sinema of arizona, democratic senator, on the floor yesterday before president biden made his way to capitol hill, talked to democrats behind closed doors, and tried to encourage them to change the rules. [video clip] >> in recent years, nearly every partyline response, every partisan action taken to protect a cherished value, has led us to more division, not less. the impact is clear for all to see, the steady escalation of
tit for tat, in which each new majority weakens the guardrails of the senate and excludes input from the other party, furthering resentment and anger amongst this body and our constituents at home. democrats increased use of requiring closure for judicial nominees under president bush led to similar tactics by republicans under obama. the decision by senate democrats to eliminate the 60 vote threshold for most judicial and presidential nominations led directly to a response in 2017 by sinner republicans, who eliminated the threshold for supreme court nominees. these short sighted actions by both parties have led to our current american judiciary and supreme court, which as i stand here today is considering questions regarding fundamental rights of americans have enjoyed
for decades. eliminating the 60 vote threshold on a partyline with the slimmest possible majorities to pass these bills that i support will not guarantee that we prevent demagogues from winning office. indeed, some who undermine the principles of democracy have already been elected. rather, eliminating the 60 vote threshold will guarantee we lose a critical tool we need to safeguard our democracy from threats in the years to come. it is clear that the two party strategy -- the two parties strategies are not working, not for either side and not for the country. host: the headline following kyrsten sinema's speech in the wall street journal, outlook dem for election bill's passage. the reaction from martin luther
king jr.-positive family is one of criticism towards kyrsten sinema. the family plans to lead a voting rights march monday, calling on lawmakers to pass new federal standards for elections, even if -- even after those took a setback thursday. martin luther king jr. the third putting out a statement in the hill, tweets out part of that statement. he said history will remember senator sinema unkindly after she rejects filibuster change and also said, while senator sinema remains stubborn in her optimism, black and brown americans are losing their right to vote. and martin luther king iii will discussed voting rights legislation today at 11:00 a.m. eastern time. we will have coverage of that on c-span, c-span adored, and you
can download our free video mobile app called c-span now. the president yesterday had senator sinema and senator manchin to the white house. the readout from nbc, the white house says the president hosted the senators at the white house for a candid and respectful exchange of views about voting rights. president biden talk to reporters after meeting with democrats behind closed doors. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> i hope to get this done. i don't know whether we will. does this on? anyway, and -- i'm not sure, but anyway, i hope we can get this done, but i'm not sure.
count the votes, count the votes, count the votes. it is about election subversion, not just whether or not people get to vote. who counts the votes? that is what this is about and what makes this different from anything we have done. i don't know that we can get it done but as long as i have a breath in me, as long as i'm in the white house, engaged at all, i will fight to change the way these legislatures are moving. thank you. host: president biden after meeting with democrats and after
senator sinema she would not vote to change the rules. to calls. john in california. are you there? go ahead. caller: i want to know why they cannot change the filibuster and then change it back. number two, the two senators, the democrats not voting with the democrats, why don't they punish them, primary them, recall them or something? last, the same laws that republicans made it, gerrymandering in their states, why don't democrats do the same? i hope someone can answer this. host: steve in california, republican, good morning. caller: good morning.
i am concerned about president biden being, as politically correct -- biden, being as politically correct as he is, consults people -- is, insults people for being against this voting rights bill, which is a farce, calling them racist. my second query -- how do you do that if you don't have the media carrying water for your side every day? that is what irks me too about the elite level media. they lie to minorities every day by telling them white society is out to get them and all white people are racist. they generalize. i used to teach history. they get a history all wrong. three quarters of the south
never even owned slaves, but they want to put the blame for slavery on all of white america hundreds of years later. if it was not so tragic it would be humorous. host: we heard from democratic senator dick durbin in illinois yesterday. the reporting was that he thought president biden's speech in georgia went too far, maybe that isolated a few people. peggy noonan writing in the wall street journal "biden's georgia speech is a breakpoint, aggressive, intemperate, not only offensive but meant to offend, prepared by people who think there is only the democratic party, and everyone else is an outsider who can be disparaged. it was a mistake on so many levels," she writes. democratic caller in california.
caller: good morning. i want to make a point. i am not a politician. i am sure there are smarter people. can you hear me? host: yeah. caller: we can be united. people say we should have a third party. here's what we need to do. let's have one party and hire the most smartest people, and fauci ain't gonna be one of them, to run this country. you don't have two opposing teams, one team, all for 1, 1 for all, and then we can decide what this country needs and work on getting this country back up and running. host: do you think there could be a consensus in this country on who is the smartest? caller: you know what?
it ain't hard to figure out? if i can sit here and think of something that would work. we are never going to be united. as long as you have biden and the democrats, you know, putting us against one another -- i'm a white man, but i don't like being called racist. we are not out to suppress voting. there is no voter suppression, i will tell you that now. you show me somebody who said they could not vote in the last election. show me one person. all you have to do is simple. you come on down and vote. it is your patriotic duty. this needs to change. so my message to all the democrats out there, enjoy your five minutes of fame, because hell is coming. host: malcolm in columbus, ohio, independent. caller: the last speaker
summarized the troubles this country has. first of all, we have one party, the democrats are the conservative wing, the republicans the fascist wing of it. we have one party. the dogcatcher, whoever wins the most votes wins. only in the senate do you need 60. the filibuster is nondemocratic, unconstitutional, so i encourage that the end the filibuster, lastly, african-americans, this should let you know, what you are seeing from west virginia and arizona, the senate in general, the limits of what they call voting in a constitutional republic to protect our rights. thank you for the opportunity for speaking. host: former president trump,
kingmaker trump, heads to world arizona, where gop candidates are eager for his backing. that is roll call. sean in lakeland, florida, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i think the lady from arizona is kind of right, but it is different. i think if you want to do something with the votes, give everybody free voter id. that would solve it. my other point is this system, i have two suggestions. one, you all should maybe have third parties come on and have them kind of do this, because what is going on basically as you have these people with these jerseys on, and one side says something, and the other side, all they have to do is go against it. they never have to offer any kind of solution. so it does go tit for tat.
you did this so i will do that against you. there is never anybody there to offer any kind of solution to anything. that is why nothing gets done and you have in the back corner of this the money people, who are pushing both sides to -- like the guy said, the people he just called in, who said, well i am not racist, others who call in and say, they are. i don't believe the majority of america is racist but there is racist stuff that goes on. i am a black person. i have seen and experienced at. -- experienced it. i'm only maybe 45 years old, but when i was going to school, people were writing by in -- were riding by in trucks
spitting at me as i was going to school as a kid, so don't tell me it is not going on, but at the same time, i drive trucks. i was stuck in nevada for christmas, and a guy walked in, said, come to the house, have some crabs with us. so people need to take these jerseys off. just because you like things that conservatives do -- conservatives are all right, quit voting for the jerseys. host: getting your tops -- top stories of the week. many of you mentioned the voting rights debate. there is also the supreme court of nc made a ruling, tensions with russia, be january 6 select committee, wanting to talk to representative kevin mccarthy
and him saying he will not cooperate. those are some of the stories and headlines in the papers. what is your top story of the week? steven dennis has been covering washington in years, writing, biden headlines, manhin sends bbb filter rewrite, scotus sinks the vax rule, omicron cases and hospitalizations so ar, 7% inflation, and it goes on. the supreme court rejected the workplace mandate rule issued by osha that requires workers at businesses with at least 100 employees to be vaccinated or tested weekly, affecting
millions of workers nationwide. the role the court kept in place was issued november 4 by medicare and medicaid and applies to more than 17 million workers. president biden reacted to the ruling by the supreme court in the statement -- i'm disappointed that the supreme court has chosen to block commonsense, life-saving requirements for employees at large businesses grounded in science and the law. this standard required employers -- a very modest burden. the court has ruled my administration could not use the authority granted by congress to require this measure. that did not stop me from using my voice as president to advocate for employers to do the right thing to protect americans health and economy. sophia in the bronx, a republican, what is your top
story of the week? caller: good morning. i have a cold. excuse me. my biggest one was, greta, january 7, 2021, 2:34 a.m., i bent down and kissed the ground. that was his last tweet, our past president. that made me cry from the day one. that was my reason for calling. i have been watching c-span for 32 years. the second one is the propaganda machine, fox, one american news and the other one, they try making people the same way mr. trump did, but after 18 years, a
good journalist is gone. shepard smith, lou dobbs, fired. they are so miserable. we will be fine whoever will run, but i know mr. trump, he is not going to run. he is finished. he's done. so let's have peace. our prayer is coming. thank you, greta. host: on the january 6 attack, oath keepers leaders charged with sedition conspiracy in for january 6 investigation. the fbi has arrested the leader and founder of the far right oath keepers militia thursday and charged, along with 10 others, seditious conspiracy over what prosecutors say was a wide-ranging plot to storm the capital and -- the capitol and
disrupt the certification of the election. and the other oath keepers are the first to be charged with sedition among the more than 700 people so far accused of taking part. npr noted this morning that seditious conspiracy carries a sentence of 20 years. dan in michigan, independent. good morning to you. caller: this is dave. good morning, greta. you know, on the voting system that we have today, i believe, in the changing society today, when it comes to voting, right or left side, we get so many last-minute decisions that we have to choose over each one. well, a third-party party system would work well, i believe. if we had -- if you only vote
for one, a third party system, and i would trade the electoral college like this. you have an ri vote and a di vote. that's a third party system that would bring everybody together. those estates, like our electoral college, they will be able to see what is working best for that state, and you will have your say. . thank you. host: joann in indiana, hi. caller: converse, indian. -- indiana. disappointment again, not just at the democrats, republicans, everybody. it is about voting count. now that you cannot vote.
-- that you can and possibilities. it is how they are going to count the vote. they have changed that. they cannot get that past, ok? -- that passed, ok? if we can get the account to be equal like it was the last time, i'm sure the population will rule out any and all whatever we want as americans. we don't have to come together in a third-party. we just have to vote and make sure the vote is counted right. now, this happened once before, and it was when they tried to pass a bill that would take the gun that shoots 30 rounds in one second out of the hands of the public and put it back where it belongs with the army.
now, all they could tell you is, oh, they are coming after your guns. they are coming after your guns. that was not the bill, but yet they keep pushing these buttons of people to get them to be against whatever they want them to not be for. and i am tired of not hearing the other side. we should be out there speaking about this and trying to get the people to understand what we are actually voting on, not what the talking points or the button pushers can do. host: all right, joanna. in north carolina, mike, republican. you are next, mike. caller: thank you. i would like to say i'm a lifelong republican. i'm in the category of being, i guess, a white male, but what
i have seen going on with the oath keepers, the storming of the capital, is ridiculous, and i think there's a solid majority, i hope majority out there, of republicans who see this as an accost on on -- our system, what allows it to be what it is, and unfortunately, trump does bring some good things to us as far as some of the policies, but he is more about himself than he is about the party, and i would appeal to moderate republicans to speak up as this comes down because i fear it is going to tear the republican party apart. host: all right. the january 6 committee, the select committee in the house, ones to talk to -- wants to talk
to minority leader kevin mccarthy about his activities on january 6. the washington post editorial team says subpoena him. "he likely had direct knowledge of president trump's state of mind around the day and knowledge of his effort before the attack to overturn the election results. indeed, the minority leader spoke with trump during the riots and reports suggest teague nor mccarthy's pleas for help -- suggests mccarthy ignored his pleas for help -- suggests trump ignored mccarthy's please for help. -- should republicans regain their majority, but subpoenaing him is much more than justified. the minority leader is such an important witness that it
would be a poor investigation if the committee failed to get his testimony. congresswoman cheney of wyoming said he should come forward to get to the truth." mccarthy had a briefing with reporters. here is what he had to say when they asked him about his decision not to cooperate. we will get to that in a minute. anthony first in minneapolis, democratic caller. then i will show you that. go ahead. caller: good morning. my thing is -- bear with me -- the problem with all this heat in america is we have a problem that most quiet americans are having a problem with, the browning of america, and this has brothers rise in trying to keep people from being able to vote, but my biggest point is
in these states where people are taking money from the government, like west virginia, they are worried about somebody else getting something they cannot get or whatever. that is still americans money. the same money you pay taxes for you should be able to get when you need help. we are fighting one another and we need to get it together before we lose our country. i'm 70 -- i'm in my 60's. i'm in -- i'm a disabled american veteran and i fought for my country and gave everything for it. i don't want my effort to be wasted. we only have about four years because there's too much anger. every day, we see hatred, mass shootings. nobody talks about that. why don't we talk about that more? stop people from getting so angry. thank you. host: thank you.
here is representative mccarthy. [video clip] >> it is not true. >> can i ask -- >> you said you would be willing to testify about your conversation. >> that was may of last year. now you are saying you will not agree to volatility -- voluntarily cooperate. wife of the public not include you are hiding something here -- why should the public not conclude you are hiding something? >> cnn. after january 6, who was the first person to offer a bipartisan commission to look at that day? was it me? yes. nancy pelosi waited four months. in that time period, as we came here and discussed, my fears
-- who starts the committee by saying the only out of bounds is the speaker, and we find that even if we asked for that information from the sergeant of arms, they will not provide it. maybe if nancy pelosi had done what other speakers would do it could have been a different answer. >> did you defy a subpoena? >> you have a unique window into the president on that day, january 6. you work one of the few people --you were one of the few people who spoke to him. doesn't the american public have a right to know what he was thinking and doing while the u.s. capitol was under attack? >> great question. you know the great thing about that? i did not wait one year later. i spoke to the american public.
my conversation was short. if i was the president, what was happening near. there is nothing i can provide the january 6 committee. there's nothing in that realm. it is politics is what they are playing. host: kevin mccarthy, the republican leader in the house yesterday, responding to reporters questions. your top story of the week. in buffalo, democratic caller, to you. caller: january 6 was all about black people. the reason he did january 6 is because he wanted to kill black people. host: why did you say that? caller: that is what it was. it was all about black people. he wanted to put us in -- like the jews was. host: why do you say that? caller: it was all about black
people and he wanted to kill black people. host: we will go to linda in oklahoma, independent. caller: hello. host: good morning. caller: good morning. how are you, greta? host: i'm fine. top story of the week for you? caller: i want to tell the audience about my experience. i went to get my id. host: we are listening. caller: i went to get my id and it was just a long line. this is about my voter id. can you hear me? host: yes. you said there was a long line. caller: there was a long line. i rode three buses and a train to get there. it was 30 miles out. when i got there -- i'm 72 years old -- i had to get in line. i mean, that line was long. people was in wheelchairs, and
everything. and so i said, no, i'm not going to be able to make it. i had to go back to that bus stop, go back home, and i have a son that's handicapped, so i called austin at the police department and asked him if they could come to my home and take a snapshot of my son. i told them about the seniors in the wheelchairs and all that. so they sent two young ladies out and took the snapshot of my son, and i thank them for it and i was glad to pay the fine rather than brave that long line. i am saying that if this is supposed to have a snapshot and photo id just to vote and do business, i feel like they should make those places more
accessible for people to get to. host: what year was this? caller: this was about a year ago. something like that. host: the 2020 election. caller: yes. they should make it accessible for us. you should not have to go 30 miles out, cash three buses and a train, and when you get there, the line is so long, my legs started hurting. host: j in virginia, a republican. top news story, jay? caller: a couple questions for you. nancy pelosi. i don't know her, but i will tell you right now that she will mess up this world. the thing of it really is that donald trump did not tell them to go in there on the sixth and at vomit thing. that is what upsets me and makes
me mad. if he runs, i will vote for him again. thank you. have a blessed day. host: all right. catherine, new hampshire, independent, go ahead. caller: the scope's final assembling of its mirrors was exciting, a success, and perhaps this telescope will never see the big bang because our universe may have been started by a big rip, in a place of super freeze, which allowed hydrogen and helium to flood into our universe, like freezing ice on a pond that cracks and freezes again. maybe the big rip does the same. the origin of our universe, and in the origin of our universe will never be found, and of their so many questions, and
many answers, perhaps, maybe. this is the thrill of having the webb telescope. host: all right, catherine. glenn in texas, republican, hi. caller: good morning, c-span. tgif. i am glad to see the supreme court has shot down joe biden. and on voting rights, the reason he wanted it passed's so he can have all his smuggled illegal vote. that is a shammed monkey show, january 6. why don't they get nancy pelosi to testify? she's the ringleader on that sham show. host: on the supreme court decision, the drudge report's page.
"supreme court blocks vaccine mandate for large employers." the one for health-care workers stands. jeffrey in virginia, democratic caller. are you there? let's go to carl in alabama. democratic caller. hi, carl. caller: hi, gretchen. my top story continues to be kyrsten sinema and joe manchin. host: why? caller: because they are not ever going to support anything the democrats support if the republicans do not support it, so i just wish, even though those two seats that they hold our vital -- hold are vital to the democrats being able to get part of their agenda through, but personally, i would not care if the democrats lose power, o
i would ratherr sinema and manchin go to the republican party. host: you think they should switch and give the republicans power before the november election? caller: even if it costs the democrats to lose their majority, i would not care. host: why? then you don't control the agenda. caller: we are not getting anything through now anyway because of them. as a result of them, we are not getting anything through. host: carl, listen through the phone. we are not get anything done anyway is your point? caller: that's correct. host: ok. bob in jacksonville, florida, democratic caller. caller: good morning. my story of the week is me. for 30 years, i have called you all. then i didn't call for three years and now i am back, 20 years later.
so thank you. host: ok. glad you are back, bob. rene in florida, republican. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i'm proud of kyrsten sinema for standing up what she believes and regardless of party. also, there's something called the great reset, not the glenn beck book. get past that. but everybody needs to google "the great reset." where is susan rice? we don't hear about her but she is joe biden's top advisor and, please, joe biden -- jill biden should be ashamed of herself for letting that poor man beware his. thank you. host: independent caller,
tennessee, next. caller: republicans and democrats, i think we should also have a group in there now, because every time i buy a phone book, passionately, and i just think there should be three -- democrat, republican, independent. host: all right. another story that's dominated headlines this week is the new variant, omicron. president biden yesterday telling the public about his latest efforts to respond to the virus. here he is. [video clip] >> we also helped make sure high-quality masks are available and in ample supply at affordable prices sold online and in stores.
for some americans, masking is not always affordable or convenient. next week, we will announce how we are making high-quality masks available to american people for free. i know we all wish that we could finally be done with wear masks. i get it, but there is a -- they are a really important tool to stop the spread, especially of a highly transmittable omicron variant, so please, please wear the mask. second, testing. we are seeing real improvement in testing. when i got here, we were doing fewer than 2 million tests a day. now, it has changed. none of these tests were at or rapid tests. this month, it is estimated that we will hit approximately 15 million tests a day and have over 375 million at-home rapid tests in january alone.
that is a huge leap. we've taken a number of steps, including invoking the defense production act, as early as last february, to ramp up production. we are on track to roll out a website next week where you can order free tests shipped to your home and, in addition to the 500 million, half a billion tests, in the process of being acquired to be shipped to your homes for free, today, i'm having my team procure an additional 500 -- an additional 500 million more tests periphery. that means one billion tests in total to meet future demand. we will continue to work with retailers and online retailers to increase availability. host: president biden yesterday on his administration's response to the pandemic.
gladys in california, independent. what is your top news story this week? host: i'm sorry -- caller: i'm sorry? host: what is your top news story this week? caller: my story is talking about the voters and the lack of -- oh, lord -- host: just listen and talk to your phone? caller: it is not causing confusion. what is doing is --
tell states what to do when the constitution gives them autonomous protections that they can set up their own elections and why aren't we cleaning up the messes that we have in this country in the elections right now? for example, new york city can go ahead and allow 800,000 illegal people to vote. california, i understand, is also trying to pass so that illegals can vote. host: let me jump in and ask you this. this is from the constitution, article one, section four. the time, place and manner of holding elections for representatives shall be
determined by the state legislature of the state thereof, but congress may by any time -- may at any time by law alter or make regulations. caller: you answered your own question. the congress may go in and do whatever they choose. the justice department is our attorney general, who does nothing. he has not accomplished a darn thing, so, going back -- host: it says congress, though. it says congress may at any time -- caller: yeah, congress can try to pass anything they want, but they have to get a majority of the people in congress to pass it, like they are trying to pass the filibuster rule. host: all right.
senator sinema and senator manchin are opposed to changing the rule. may in buoy, maryland, democratic caller. caller: my biggest story of the week is the fact that five states sent in fraudulent certification documents, changing the electoral vote for their state from biden to trump, which is illegal, and it was sent to the national archives. now, the select committee is investigating that and it should be turned over to the doj for prosecution. now, also, with the voting rights, the biggest part of the voting rights bill is the fact that states across the united states have enacted legislation where, again, if the electors in a particular state doesn't agree
with the vote of the people that they can overturn it and say, well, we do not like your selection, we will send in our slate of winners. that is the problem, and that is why they are trying to get through the two bills for voting rights. and, yes, some states are suppressing the vote. so my biggest story is these republicans, they know trump did not win the election, but they sent in these fraudulent certification documents. host: thanks. a headline from cnn -- trump allies fake electoral college certificates. a couple of other headlines, speaking of republicans. the washington times noting this morning this headline, that the republican national committee is threatening to pull out of the
presidential debates, the ones by the independent commission, over biased moderators and diminished credibility, is what the rnc chair is saying. on russia, russia suggests that venezuela and cuba are next if tensions remain high with the u.s. and ted cruz's bid to sanction the north street into pipeline -- the nordstrom into pipeline -- the pipeline running from russia to germany fails in the senate. ted, a republican, good morning. caller: my first one is the january 6 committee. i would hope it would have more teeth. these people should have been
completely locked up and not have been able to come outside ever again. my second is voting rights. i have a florida id. and what do i need an id to vote for when i have an id to drive that validates my driving but cannot validate my voting, or to see who i am? so my thing is just you all are not making good sense of any of what they are doing. kevin mccartney is not a smart person at all. i heard him this morning and he just ducks and dives and dodges everything. so i'm just wanting to see a lot of improvement on everybody's functions. everybody needs to improve.
just stop ducking and diving and being stupid, basically. host: ok. david, romney, west virginia, independent. what do you think of your senator, joe manchin, and his decision not to change the filibuster rule? caller: i agree with that. i have to agree with that. normally, i would be republican, but i think i am independent now because of the things that have been happening over the last several years. host: ok, and so what is your top news story? caller: my problem is that all this here got started when trump got his office and then he started ruling like a king, like we used to have, and it has changed the outcome of everything that gets put in front of the house, or the senate, mainly the senate, and
i'm very nervous there, but it has just destroyed our country and i'm so afraid of us not being a democrat after all this stuff that has been said. that we are going to be an autocracy instead of a democracy. and trump started it, and biden is trying his best to do everything he can, and it just will not pass because the republicans won't let it. you cannot blame it on joe manchin. you cannot blame it on kyrsten sinema. you have to blame it also on the republican party and probably biden also because he is a little far to the left. he's asking too much. they need to meet in the middle somewhere and come up with something that is useful. host: all right. dolores in tennessee, democratic
caller. hi, dolores. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm fine. caller: can you hearing? -- hear me? host: we can. caller: two big stories this week. kristin sentiment -- kyrsten sinema and joe manchin will not vote to stop the filibuster. on another thing, i'm 71. i can remember standing in line. white people come up in the dairy market and you would have to move back. i remember riding on the back of the bus when i was six years old. my mother was taking us downtown, to mainstreet. she put me on the bus first. when my mother picked up my
little sister, a man told us to get to the back. i remember this. -- in order for us to vote. joe manchin don't care, kyrsten sinema don't care. when you are taking bribe money, it is like the mob from a long time ago. you don't care about anybody. his status for. in arizona, they have dust storms. people of dirt and stuff on their lines. she don't care. they don't care about us when you are taking money from big corporations and lobbyists. host: tommy in new york, republican. caller: the main thing i'm worried about is this election bill. it is a robbery. i used to work for the board of elections in new york, and the
main thing you have to do is go in, first thing, show proof of who you are. that is the main thing in any election, in anything in life. show proof of who you are. then see if you are registered. then you can vote. this is just a democratic way to try to rob elections. to creates fraud -- it creates fraud. it is common sense. it should be a law across the land. you walk in, i don't care what you are, you show proof this is me. i am registered, vote, and that is it. case closed. it is ridiculous and that is what i have to say for host:.ok . freddie in indianapolis, democratic caller. caller: good morning. let me say that i am a 70-year-old black man, a democrat.
i believe that it is a state's right if it wants to have id cards. i believe it is a state's right if states want noncitizens, aliens in other words, to vote, such as new york and california. it is a state's right. we always hear republicans talk about states rights. well, why are they complaining about new york and california, who may want noncitizens to vote in their state? now, when it comes to the -- i feel that we should all be voting under one rule, period. people don't seem to understand that. white people have all these
organizations, i guess, like the ku klux klan, neo-nazis who try to put me down or want to kill me, but they tell me i cannot call them a racist. host: all right, freddie. joe in signal mountain, tennessee, republican. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i don't know where to start. it seems all these democrats are smoking something i wished i had. opening up borders and so people come in, no id? they have not even answered questions like what happened in atlanta? why was there a busted water pipe? where did all these people go at night, and all of a sudden, six stayed, and they kept shoving ballots through? we have not even answered that. what about mr. sullivan, being videoed at the white house?
no one has been arrested for insurrection. i mean, people, wake up. quit smoking that stuff, my god. host: jane in pennsylvania, independent. caller: good morning and god bless you. like the gentleman before you i barely know where to start. for the last few days, i have heard people calling in that cannot use -- there driver's id's. that law is not in effect now. you can use your license. i don't know where cnn got that story, but the electoral ballots go to washington certified by the attorney general's of every state. the forms are the same. i have called a number of them. nobody knows where that is coming from. i cannot hear you, darling. hello? host: we are listening, jane.
caller: now, what i really want to say the election is a hind us, it's time for everybody to get over it, and stop. the lord says, don't speak evil. we have to pray for all of them, the victimizers and the victims. the most important thing, i'm 75 years old. there was an attack on the capital and it sent me to deja vu. went underground, 70 to 75. the bombs, the capital, the pentagon. i don't know who remembers and who doesn't, but i have not forgotten it. 68, cities were burned. and it was covered up by prosecuting the chicago seven. people may want to look at that and you may want to look at the
stories. it neither party is innocent. i just ask that you know that the lord god will give you the truth and to stop calling each other's names and dividing us. if you ever had to live with a nightmare of a parent in a prison camp, you would know how grateful we should be for this country. host: we will take a break. when we come back, we will continue this discussion on voting rights that we've had this weekend we will be joined by two top activists on both sides of this debate. former trump administration official ken cuccinelli. and later, naacp president ceo derek johnson. we will be right back. ♪ >> book tv, every sunday on
c-span, authors with their latest nonfiction book. former new jersey governor and 2016 presidential candidate chris christie provides a blueprint for how the republican party win national elections in his book "republican rescue." and political scientist david price shares his book, the congressional experience. he provides perspective on the rules and the role of congress. how it has changed over time. and have a legislative body can function better. he's interviewed by gerald connolly. every sunday on c-span two. or watch online anytime at book tv.org. c-spanshop.org is c-span's store.
national chairman of the election transparency initiative and the acting deputy secretary and the trump administration. let's begin with your view on these two voting rights bills that president biden and democrats have been pushing this week. ken: they are both enormous. they are both designed, in different ways, basically, to drag election control to washington. and so my organization, the election transparency initiative opposes both of them starting with the basic fact that they amount to a washington takeover of elections that was the expectation of the founders. it is not perfect and will never be perfect, but it will be the best system in the world.
that goes away if either of these bills pass into law. and vociferously speak openly about how washington needs to step in to stop the states from running these elections themselves. the most recent form of hysteria is because of election reform laws. if you just look at hr one, it has been introduced in one form or another for years and years. in very much the same form. this is not new because of 2020. it is not new because of the election reforms that a few states have done in the last year. this is a long-standing effort by the most left-wing part of the democrat party for a washington takeover of elections. the elements of the bills,
getting rid of voter id, registering noncitizens to vote, making it legal effectively for them to vote in our elections, these are things that americans that when they understand they are in the bill, they don't agree with it. on the other side -- host: keep going. ken: if you take the politics out of elections if you can imagine such a thing. and by that i mean the administration of elections. and you talk to 100 random americans about what they think make up the good elements of a well-run election, we overwhelmingly agree that you have to prove who you say you are. even vice president harris said that last summer in an interview which means voter identification . which means voting in person or early voting.
people agree that you should have transparency. ordinary citizens should be able to see the process from beginning to end. there is overwhelming agreement that we should know who are on our voter rolls. it's one of the weakest parts of the entire system and every state is the low quality of the maintenance of the voter rolls. many states are doing it. it is being done in some places on a bipartisan basis which is better for america. and in large part, because of the 2020 election, the two sides, politically, have tended to line up. and this has become more partisan then i wish it were. host: sticking with the voter id laws, you mentioned hr one. senators mansion and senator amy
klobuchar came forward with a compromise called the freedom to vote act and that is what president biden has been pushing this week. the freedom to vote act adopts a different approach of voter id. it requires any state with a voter id requirement to accept any form of id accepted in west virginia including utility bills and bank statements. voters would have to vote in a process similar to west virginia. ken: that is washington dictating to the states. exhibit a of that example. when major league baseball was fighting with georgia when georgia passed the election reform law and they move the all-star game to denver, one of the minority owners can blackwell of the cincinnati reds pointed out to the commissioner, if i ordered tickets to the baseball game and i show up with
my utility bill that will call, you won't give me the tickets. those on the left today, they seemed very comfortable mandating that you show your papers including health papers, not just identification, to go to a restaurant. and we all know minorities have gotten the shots at a lower rate and i hear no complaints or concerns about the loss of access for minorities. real identification that is verifiable and understandable in each state like a driver's license though not exclusively so is much more appropriate. a photo id is a real id. anybody can fake a utility bill or a bank statement. they don't have security features that government forms of identification has.
every state that requires real identification, photo identification, provides it for free. that's the way it should be. i strongly support that. and it is an appropriate access element. the fact of the matter is that americans of every stripe, every color, every partisanship agree that voter identification including a photo is appropriate to require across-the-board in america. so why is it just the radical left of the political world insist on watering down that requirement? host: i want our viewers to join in on the conversation. phone lines are on the screen. we are talking with ken cuccinelli, former deputy secretary for homeland security the trump administration. he's the former virginia attorney general and served from 2010 to 2014.
you heard the president and democrats argue that the state laws that have been enacted after the 2020 election suppress and subvert the vote because of who they say gets to count the vote. are there any state laws that you think have gone too far? ken: i can't think of any in the last year which is what i assume you are referring to because that is the target of the president's attacks. you have seen a banning of private money coming into government to essentially take over the government function of running elections. 10 states have banned that. i can't believe the other 40 have not. it's like being allowed to pay the referee in your basketball game. it's crazy. those have been among the more
controversial items. cleaning up the voter rolls, knocking dead people off the voter rolls. that is a federal requirement as well. there are voter role maintenance requirements if i remember correctly. the help america vote act. and those have not been followed by most states whether they are red or blue. the narrative attacks you are hearing, jim crow two point oh, even the washington post, no bastion of the right, gave for pinocchio's to the president for the assertions that he made. and he did it again in georgia this last week. he doubled down even though the liberal washington post has said it is a lie. it is completely untrue. for people old enough to remember actual segregation, i know virginia's history.
virginia and other states used the law to try to keep lack citizens from voting. that is a real history that we have to be sensitive to and distill on the books with section two of the voting rights act. it is illegal under federal law and it can be prosecuted and should be where it occurs. and it does still occur here and there. it's not just southern states. it's appropriate the voting rights act applies everywhere. what is not appropriate is the attempt to require states to get permission from federal bureaucrats before making any change to those election laws. the narrative attack that comes from the left of voter suppression and so forth, it goes all the way back to the early thousands. this is not a new ad hominem attack but that is what it is. it gets weaker and weaker every
year as voting is made easier than ever before. as you and i are talking, it is easier to register and easier to vote for every legal american voter today than it has ever been in american history. and that isn't changing. we are improving systems in some states so that you can rely on and see what's happening. it's not an accident to the organization i leaders called the election transparency initiative. our goal is transparency because we believe if people from both sides, whoever wins and whoever loses, and maybe three sides and some races -- if they can see everything happening, they can have more confidence in the outcome. we have seen increases in transparency whether it is audits which are sometimes controversial. it's good to think in terms of
future elections instead of past elections. you want things to work well in the 2024 election, let's say wisconsin, a perennial swing state. we don't know who is going to be in that race. we don't know the outcome. by putting these things in place beforehand, they are as if someone is refining an election. that is not the goal of these election reforms. 2020 is behind us and it is time to look forward. host: elbert in chicago, democrat caller. guest: good morning -- caller: good morning. i just wanted to mention that while you are on here talking about the democrats assault on state's rights, georgia right
now has purged all of its black members from the county election boards. they did not do this in 1961, they did this in 2021. so this is why the government has to get involved in these elections because states are abusing their rights. ken: so the assertion made is not accurate. but let's pretend that that hypothetical played out. and that georgia knocked all of the black members off of the electoral boards off of those boards. section two of the voting rights act which attorney general merrick garland made very we are that he is very ready to be aggressive about prosecuting, would be triggered. that would be clear voting
rights act. that is the law today. it is still in full force and effect. the only thing that doesn't exist that some on the left would like to see is a process called preclearance. in chicago, they did not deal with preclearance where albert lives. but in virginia, we did. that meant every single change to anything in our election system. literally if we move a precinct from a local school to a local theater, it had to be approved by federal bureaucrats. what they did with that is every opportunity they got to hold a change over our head became an opportunity on their part to negotiate how the system worked to try to control what went on in the state rather than simply make sure that we want to discriminating. that is part of the goal of the
amendments to the voting rights act. you mentioned hr one. that would be hr four, the john lewis voting rights act he had the purpose of that bill is to reinstate this entire structure for preclearance. not just for southern states but the whole country. host: i want to read an editorial. georgia is among the states that effectively allow state lawmakers always under the control of one party or the other to appoint a hand-picked board that can take control of local elections in the event of a controversy or questionable activity. that is dangerous and undemocratic. the law shortens early voting and reduces the number, visibility of, and accessibility of drop boxes. restricting voter access disadvantages black voters. ken: it is true that right now,
republicans control the house, senate, and governorship in georgia. but there is nothing that says that will always be the way things are in georgia. you don't have to go back to far for that not to be the case. and if you look around the country, if similar programs are implemented, we have many split states. north carolina, pennsylvania, wisconsin, michigan. and there are no guarantees that either party will retain control . in most states in america. in virginia, we just saw kratz lose control of the house of delegates in the 2021 election and a republican became governor instead of a democrat but there is still a democrat state senate. it varies from state to state. i would note the complaint about early voting. if you look at the northeastern states, georgia has more early
voting than delaware, the president's home state. then new jersey, which the mainstream media lauded whitten -- when they established nine days of early voting. georgia has 15. the more early voting you have, the more difficult transparency is. the more difficult chain of custody of the ballot is. the longer you stretch that timeout, the more opportunities there are for problems. in most problems are in the form of incompetence, not in the form of cheating. but when you create systems where those problems exist, cheating can be hidden. in the issue of drop boxes, i would note that we did not have drop boxes in america before 2020. drop boxes are a terrible idea.
they are difficult to secure and oversee. even the mayor of philadelphia broke the law in how they used their drop boxes. his wife went and dropped the ballots off. you can only drop your own ballot off. drop boxes tend to be linked to ballot harvesting. the ability to put pressure on people to vote the way the collector wants them to vote rather than independently how they might vote on their own. a few different things referenced. i would suggest leaving any drop boxes out is an element of insecurity. georgia has much more early voting then most of the states in the northeast. that is the usual comparison because at the federal level, that tends to be where the senators are complaining about it. i was with senator blumenthal of
connecticut who was complaining about georgia shortening early voting days and i asked him why connecticut has zero. he was a little bit stymied by getting asked a question by his witness. early voting does not equal access. even expert witnesses call it convenience voting. it is for convenience. i think there would be a lot of agreement to make election day a federal holiday. i think that is something the left and the right might agree on to make election day as accessible as possible. i'm not suggesting that we would ever get rid of all early voting, but the less there is of it, to offer people what they need to accommodate their schedules is the most appropriate balance between accessibility early and securing elections. and this is all without even
touching mail-in voting. host: grand junction, colorado. republican. caller: the main part of my question is about the people that have passed away. how do you determine that they have passed away and they are no longer eligible to vote? there was a gentleman, an attorney-at-law from nevada, i believe. back in 2020. and he brought this up and i wrote down the statistics he was trying to prove in front of congress. and he said at least 1500 dead people voted according to the social security death records. and he went through a list of statistics and swore in front of congress that what his reach church -- research showed is that there were some election violations in nevada.
there are just too many to mention. how do you verify that people are citizens? how do you verify that they are voting ok and still alive? or they got their vote in before they passed away? maybe they passed away a day later or an hour later. ken: let's start with the last question because that does happen. one of the things that can happen with early voting is that john doe votes on october 1, dies on october 15, and ballots get counted on november 3. most state laws indicate that you have to be alive on election day for your vote to count. the practical answer is that for that kind of a tight window, i'm
not aware of any state gearing out who those people are right now. you can look at georgia and you will find hundreds of people in a similar situation. you mentioned nevada. i have to pronounce it correctly. and it's a challenge. you mentioned the social security administration database. that is a commonplace state governments look to confirm death. how often do they do it? do they actually remove them from the voter rolls? the law firm led by christian adams is suing michigan to remove thousands and thousands of dead people from their roles where they have literally attached page after page of obituary and records of folks dying. their local election officials simply refuse to remove them? why is this important.
names that are on the roles that are latent, that aren't active, can be used by cheaters to vote not in person. it is one of the biggest problems with security in every state of the country, the lack of the data quality of the voter rolls. it's a tremendous weak point. the social security administration is one place that governments look to identify death. their own departments of vital statistics. typically, there is some expectation that that will be checked frequently. looking for names of people that passed away. in most states, that does not happen regularly. and when it does, they are very reluctant to remove those dead folks from the voter rolls. that is a real problem when it
comes to the potential to perpetrate fraud. an even tougher question about how you identify citizenship. really the only way this happens systematically as when you register to vote, checking a box that says i am a u.s. citizen. i was just in arizona and efforts have been made by that democrat secretary of state hobbs to not make that statement have legal consequences. what do i mean by that? we have all signed government forms that we attested a firm that we are u.s. citizen under penalty of perjury. she removed all of those penalties to eliminate the potential for criminal liability for such folks even though you have to be a citizen to vote in federal elections. by law. many on the left are taking steps to make it impossible to
police that. and it isn't a citizenship database. our database and the federal government can help identify people that are here and not citizens. that is sort of proving a negative. only two states, nevada and texas, have ever taken advantage of the federal database that deals with people, for instance, seeking citizenship. i ran america's legal agency and we keep up that database and participate in that. but if someone is not in that database, it does not mean that they are a citizen. people can be here illegally and they don't get picked up. the only real way to do it is to ask for things like birth certificates or citizenship.
host: judy, independent. caller: hello. ken: good morning, judy. caller: in delaware, we seem to be doing fine with how we vote and the lack of early voting and in person voting. it seems to work for us and i don't understand why everyone has been up in arms with some of the southern states that want this massive early voting when it just causes convolution and confusion. maybe it's just for convenience. the state of delaware is actually able to do it. you know, jersey, connecticut, we all do it.
there was an individual talking about the 800,000. why is that a problem? it is against the constitution. mi not correct? ken: you are correct -- well, federal law as it relates to federal elections, you are correct. but states are giving the authority to elect whoever they want. the federal government doesn't govern that. this people are not supposed to vote in federal elections. how do i segregate those folks from a federal election if you will let 800,000 noncitizens onto the voter rolls. elections run so susie -- smoothly and people are on top of things that they can distinguish between a u.s.
citizen and a noncitizens that are supposedly legitimately on the voter role. i'm under no illusions that those 800,000 people in new york city are somehow voting in federal elections. i think that is a fiction. you're seeing people challenge it on a constitutional basis as an equal protection violation. judy, i think we will hear more on that subject because new york city took the action they did. there are small towns in vermont and other parts of the country that have voted to give noncitizens the ability to pursue pate in the local elections. new york city is the big kahuna, the 800 pound gorilla. and i think it will certainly draw litigation. the very question you raise, is this constitutional under the federal constitution will be
addressed. i don't know if it will go all the way to the supreme court anytime soon. i do think this question has been raised to a level never before seen by new york city. in many states, legislators are stepping for their shot. they are amending the state constitution to bar it. it is a counter debate and a counter argument being made in different states. this will develop over the next two years with the timing of litigation. more on early voting and delaware doesn't have it and it runs fine anyway. one of the most significant advocates, certainly the most experienced advocate against early voting in america is the
now retiring secretary of state of new hampshire. the longest serving secretary of state perhaps in american history, bill gardner. a democrat who has been elected by their legislature. both democrat and republican legislatures, no matter which party had control, have elected him to continue for the simple reason. avoiding early voting makes election day special. avoiding early voting allows for a cleaner election. it avoids overburdening the logistical challenges that your local election officials have to absorb and contend with. and the new hampshire system without early voting works spectacularly well.
they would be the first to make the point that they have accommodation for that with mail-in voting with excuse absentee voting. i know of no one on any part of this debate that doesn't support the continuation of the availability of mail-in voting for people who are sick and going to be away from their locality on election day. judy, your experience in delaware, you are not alone. there are people all over the country that do not have early voting that believe their elections run just fine without it. the very first presidential debate occurred after voting had begun in many states. and i can tell u.s. someone who has been a candidate five times, you really target what you're trying to communicate to voters. this is what i will do.
you target that from election day back. and that becomes very difficult to do in the national elections. host: let's go to otis in detroit, michigan. otis, good morning. ok, we will go to less. caller: how are you doing today? host: question or comment? caller: it is very simple to stop the cheating with people putting in more than one vote. everybody has a social security number, a thumbprint and an eyeball print. if it was tied to a federal computer system, anybody that showed up with more than one thumbprint, social security, or i print would be just the five. this is something that could have been done along time ago and should have been done a long time ago because everybody only
has one each of those. host: let's take that point. ken: talking about using biometrics, you are correct. the technology exists to do what you described. but there are major privacy concerns going the direction you're describing. particularly a federal database. it is true almost all u.s. citizens, not exactly 100%, but close, have a social security number. noncitizens can have a social security number if they are here legally over the long term. if that were all one big database, you are correct. as sort of a gateway for voter identification, your thumbprint would accomplish what you say. i and many others have concerns about putting all of that
information in one way if for no other reason then when government has that information, they will use it for other things and it also gets away from state run elections. doing this in one federal database. there are other ways to get close to that. there is ballot on demand using a personalized qr code or barcode that only your ballot has. i will use virginia and ken cuccinelli as an example. i can have a personalized ballot printed and i will be the only one in all of virginia, a simple question of using barcode technology that identifies it as my ballot. if they say your ballot has already been voted, we know there is a problem.
it allows us to run that down backwards to hunt it down. there are ways we can individualize ballots without having to use biometric. are they as secure? not quite. but they don't involve the kind of privacy concerns that arise when you start talking about gathering biometrics. host: ken is in virginia. democratic color. -- democratic caller. caller: a couple questions. this is something i need for you to address. in 2016, former president trump said that if he didn't win, it was rigged. he won. it wasn't rigged. in 2020, he said if i don't win, it's rigged. he loses, so it's rigged. i don't understand. it's like a child, if i don't win, somebody else cheated. that is the first thing.
the second thing is that it is so hard to defraud, have a collaborative effort around the whole united states to defraud an election. i don't understand. you walk in, give your id, they check your name, you vote. that's it. if he won in 2020, do you think the republicans in the republican states would change the voting laws and would been going crazy over this? ken: i don't feel like i'm going absolutely crazy and i don't think others are. there might be some people who fit in that category. 2020 was so sloppy in so many places, i don't think it would've mattered who won or lost that you would've seen some voting reform going on. i would point back to bush v gore in 2000. that whole race turned on florida. the outcome never changed.
bush beat gore in every round of that count, but what we all learned was would've horridly run system they had. so what happened after? george bush set the politics aside and the florida legislature for years following that election set about cleaning up their system. they were legislating for years to fix the problems identified in 2000. in those problems had been there before. but it was the intention of bush v gore that brought them out of their stupor and made election reform a priority in florida. so the winners went about fixing the system as best they could including firing some people that did not do a good job. and you are seeing a lot of that happen, whether you consider for the winners or the losers, and
places all over the country. in some places, this is bipartisan. in kentucky, the democrat governor signed off on an entire package of election reforms. it is only as part of the discussion of 2020 that this has become so politicized. and this, i am referring to, is the process by which we run elections. your comment about someone declaring an election rigged beforehand if they lose doesn't hold up. elections are about voters, legal voters having the chance to express themselves and where the chips fall, they fall. the idea with election reform is that people have more confidence that what they are seeing is how the system is supposed to run. rules are not changing in the middle. and in 2020, this was a big problem. changing the rules in the middle
of an election is a very bad idea. it shatters confidence before you ever get to an outcome. it does start to look rigged. from a polling standpoint, scott rasmussen points out that after the 2016 election, 26% of americans thought donald trump wasn't the properly elected president. after 2020, 30 1% joe biden was not the properly elected president. i have a funny feeling those two groups don't overlap. there might be some partisan bias and how those folks answered those questions. the challenge for us is to make a system so good that even the losers can see that they were treated fairly and the rules were followed and that election in that state. that is the goal that we have to work for. host: in your opinion, did
president biden win the election in 2020? ken: yeah, i think there were a lot of problems in 2020. an enormous amount. more than ever before. but i don't think that the final outcome was changed because of those problems. i think in nevada, arizona, georgia, there were more people, more votes cast including by some of the dead people we have been talking about than the margin of victory. it doesn't mean everyone of those votes went for joe biden and therefore the outcome would've been different. we will never know that. one of the important things about maintaining election security is that once the ballot goes in the ballot box with the
exception of individually mailed and ballot's, any opportunity to correct what that does to make the count wrong can't be fixed except by having a whole new election. judges are people, too. if you want the judge's order that your state rerun the presidential election, imagine what kind of a burden that is on the judge. i don't mean that i have to do my job, but the weight of that decision. it's why it is so important we secure elections on the front end so we don't have to contend with these problems in the very short 5, 6 weeks after an election is supposedly over. host: president trump claimed over 10,000 dead georgians voted. an election expert looked at that claimant others and when the secretary of state office
investigated, it found 4 dead voters. ken: the whole reason that we have things like court processes is so people can make their claims and advance their evidence. the reality to my last point is that election day on november 3 with certification on december 14, that's maybe six weeks in between. i can tell you as a former attorney general that that is not enough time to prove each of those cases. every single one of those allegations is a case unto itself of voter fraud. with the investigation, the trial, and the proof. the logistics of accomplishing that, it just can't practically be done. we have to clean up voter rolls.
and we need to be taking the steps to make the election transparent from the beginning and secure all the way through so that we have less to argue about after election day. it will never be perfect so i don't want to suggest that we ever get rid of any concerns at all. but the more we can whittle that down and deal with it in the process of an election, the better off america will bead -- will be from a confidence standpoint. host: a quick phone call and answer if we can. somerset, kentucky. independent. go ahead. caller: in 2016, 50 6% of the republican voters were over 50 years old. in a country where the life expectancy is 77, you can imagine how many voters passed away by 2020. on the democrats side, over 50%
were under 50 years old, a large number of which were 18 to 24. you can imagine how many of those 14 years old or older voted democrat. thank you for my time. have a great day. ken: every election, how different age groups vote breaks a little differently. people change their views. i have changed my views on issues like the death penalty and other things. that happens as people go through life, own a home, have children. some iron cast path for america in the future.
that changes who they vote for and how they think america can be made better going forward into the future. that every state needs to make, that needs to be part of the process. washington isn't likely to be taking over elections very -- anytime soon. that is important for the evolution of elections. i last comment is from my homeland security days. in the last election, part of my job as deputy secretary was dealing with potential for foreign interference. and if you have an election system run by washington, it's a lot easier for outsiders to crack that and manipulate outcomes then it is when we have 51 state elections plus the district of columbia.
that makes it more difficult to do. host: ken cuccinelli is now the chair of the election transparency initiative. go to electiontransparency.org for more. thank you for the conversation. ken: good to be with you. host: we will take a break and when we come back, we hear from the other side. from the naacp, derek johnson is here. >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span two, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. two programs on how presidents influence the early space race.
and at 2:50 p.m. eastern, the book mercury rising and the new battleground of the cold war. and at 355 p.m. eastern, a discussion on the history of the filibuster. exploring the american story. c-span.org/history. >> browse through our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor. there is something for every c-span fan. help support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-span shop -- c-spanshop.org.
sunday, february six on in-depth, georgetown university law professor cheryl cassian will be here to talk about race relations and in committee in america. in her latest, white space, black hood. join the conversation with facebook comments and tweets. life sunday, february 6 at noon eastern on book tv. on c-span two. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. we are joined by derek johnson, the naacp president and ceo get to talk about voting rights, a debate that has been happening in washington. let's begin with your reaction to senators kyrsten sinema and joe manchin saying that they oppose changing the filibuster
rules or the two voting rights bills being pushed by the president and other democrats. derek: you cannot be for voting rights protection and not be willing to make sure we implement policy to protect the right of voters across the country. this isn't just about two democratic senators, it's about all 100 senators. by a vote of 98-0, the senate passed the voting rights act. what happened between 2006 and now is the complete politicization of the right to vote and access to the ballot box. what should be a simple administrative procedure to ensure that no state, no jurisdiction are discriminating against a certain population. or to make sure there is access to voting.
because one party, quite frankly , have determined that they want to limit access to voting as opposed to expand the platform to attract new voters. host: the senators that voted to reauthorize the voting rights act are in the senate today. republicans say they would agree to reauthorizing, but democrats tied it to these pieces of legislation which they say is a federal mandate and are opposed to for various reasons. derek: i find that hard to believe because it is a standalone. there is nothing blocking them from adopting the john lewis voting rights act. we really make sure that we protect -- this is not a partisan issue. this is about the right to vote.
we have seen these type of postures before we have the right to fully engage. but before the 19 625 voting rights act, many african-americans across the country were denied access to voting because of the procedure rules. take the partisanship out of this. it's an issue that all americans can fully engage in. host: what do you think will happen today and in the coming days? what have you been told about holding this possible vote on these pieces of legislation? and what will your group do in response to the two democratic senators that say they are not on board with changing the rules? derek: it's not about these two democratic senators, it's all 100 members of the senate.
and until we can hopefully get the necessary votes to pass voting rights protection, this is not about partisanship. it's about protecting the integrity of our democracy. other people can expand and fight for democracy. how will that stand up domestically here in the 50 states? host: senator richard durbin of illinois, a democrat, said president biden perhaps went too far with his rhetoric. here is the republican leader mitch mcconnell on the floor after the president's remarks. senator mcconnell: he used the phrase jim crow 2.0 to demagogue a law that makes the franchise more accessible than in his own state of delaware.
he blasted george's procedures regarding local election officials while pushing national legislation with almost identical language on that issue. the president implied things like widely popular voting id laws as totalitarian? totalitarian? ironically washington -- ironically, the same day that the washington, d.c. mayor told people to take their id card any time they leave the house. the president himself is using irresponsible, delegitimizing rhetoric that undermines our democracy. host: what about the criticism of the president upon speech?
derek: they spend more time criticizing the words of the president and not enough time necessitating voting rights protection. a lot of this has been bottlenecked by mitch mcconnell. it is a state legislative body. we talked about the state of georgia where you have local election officials that are not partisan. they are being targeted by individuals doing their job and they have low protections. we have a member that has served for years as an election administrator that has been threatened. and we have another person wanting to leave their home. for mitch mcconnell to make this about the president and not deal with the fact that it has been shown over and over -- we have
to move beyond the posture we are currently seeing. and we need to put forward voting rights protections and make sure election officials are not being targeted and harassed. host: we are continuing to talk about the voting rights debate. democrats, republicans, independents, numbers are on your screen. you can also text us (202) 748-8003. you can also go to our facebook page or post on twitter using @cspanwj. some of the georgia voting laws that democrats and you have been criticizing. here is what he had to say.
>> the challenges and special circumstances that arose as a result of the pandemic. democrats decided that these commonsense mainstream updates represented an unprecedented attack on voting rights. in georgia, which is one of the first to enact voting rights, it became the poster child to convince americans their voting rights were in danger. what terrible measures are states imposing? it is measure for bidding medical organizations with food or water within 150 feet of a polling place. yes. apparently, preventing partisan political organizations from providing lunch to voters
threatens the very stability of our entire democracy. nothing in george's law prevents outside groups from providing food and water outside the 150 foot radius. and the law explicitly allows nonpartisan election workers as opposed to political groups to make water available to voters. i'm pretty sure any voter can bring his or her food or water. none of that has prevented democrats from suggesting rules about food and water distribution at polling places represent a grave threat to voting rights. ironically, the state of new york has a similar provision prohibiting any refreshment or provision to a i don't see the ds
traveling to new york to decry the threat to the moxie posed by the new york legislature. host: your response? guest: look at the average wait time. this is because of the lack of accessible polling places and machines. you had wait times for african-americans of 5-7 hours compared to whites in the same state which was far shorter, 10 or 15 minutes. you have to look at the underlying reason why there was a need to provide water or food. people are waiting in line at far too long. mail-in voting should be expanded. more polling places that have identified it a high propensity
of turnout should be readily available. that is some foundational things that create long lines at voting places, you only see these long lines in african-american or latino precincts. that needs to be addressed. when you give half the picture, it sounds like this is a partisan issue. we need to standardize our access to voting across the country in all 50 states. early voting should be expanded. it is a viable approach to ensure voices can be heard of the ballot box. when the senator used half-truths or half information to explain things away, there are some shenanigans going on when both of these bills are trying to do with the shenanigans we've seen taking place state-by-state. host: the bills we are talking
about are the freedom to vote act, which has 15 days early voting it. election day is a federal holiday. each state must have the same day voter registration and bars boundaries that favor or disfavor any clinical party. the john lewis voting rights act restores voting rights to 1965 and expands the formulas the justice department can use to identify discriminatory voting patterns. they would need the justice department approval for making further changes to elections. let's get to calls. caller: your last guest talked a lot. he didn't say anything of any substance. all they do is talk. they want you to talk about it. there must be something wrong.
if there is any republican that can name one state in this union that had over 1000 illegal votes, name the state. it's not happening. this is a ruse. it's a smokescreen. that's what these people do. host: your thoughts on that? guest: i agree. it's a ruse. 2020 was the most transparent and secure election in our history. there were 60 lawsuits filed and every one of those lawsuits were kicked out of court because they lacked any evidence of voter fraud or confusion or anything else. you just read out what the two bills would do. it would create a federal floor of access to voting.
to ensure that people would have 15 days to do mail-in voting. a qualifying deadlines are the same across the country. that there are basic standards that open up more transparency and more uniformity. anything less is a subversion of democracy. this is not a partisan issue. this is an issue to ensure every citizen hides access to exercise the right to vote. host: janice is in michigan. caller: good morning. how is everyone today? i hope you are all doing well. mr. johnson it, i used to be a democrat. i don't know how to say this.
the democrats now are just tearing our country apart. i know that we divide ourselves among race and ethnicity and political persuasion. we so need to come together. i am concerned very much that a lot of misinformation is being let out into the country about voting rights state-by-state. i really fear for a federal takeover of voting. what will happen is the democrats are in power by very slim majority. i kind of foresee this coming november that it's going to change. why is everyone so hell-bent on
demonizing everybody else? host: tell us why you fear a federal takeover of elections? caller: because you go back to the original founding of the country. the states are the ones where these elections, rules and laws, are formulated. this is what will happen. if it becomes federal eyes, in a few years, if the republicans take over, there is going to be a backlash. it seems like every year we get worse and worse. host: respond. address her fears. guest: i am glad you are watching c-span so we can get valid information. this is a problem about what
people are consuming. often times, it is devoid of fact. every citizen has the same expectation. there would be no power changing from how a state conducts elections. it will set a standard that all citizens should be allowed to 15 days early voting. they should have the same deadline for voter registration. it's like driving on a federal highway. we have the same speed limit. it is brought down death and crashes. it has created a standard so expectations are the same in michigan and minnesota.
i agree with you, the partisanship we have seen over the last several years has been a through threat to democracy. if we continue on this path, we won't recognize the country we are living in. we need to do more and ensure that the basic premise of who we are as americans and how we operate as americans under the constitution is consistent. it should be limited to their ability to expand and attract new voters. they have to go and suffocate the system of how people cast their ballot. i am here with our democracy. host: let's go to tina in
huntington pennsylvania. independent. caller: happy new year. it's been a long time. good morning, mr. johnson. i hope you indulge me for a moment. i was a democrat, went to publican. i went independent. i lived in florida in 2012. i stood in those lines to cast my vote. when i moved to pennsylvania, it's very rural appear. we don't have public transportation. why can't we just go back to requesting the absentee ballot, fill it out, mail it in. it worked before. i'm saying this because my father-in-law took ill and lived with us during the 2020 cycle. knowing he was away from his polling place, i wanted to ensure he was able to vote. we requested a mail-in ballot.
we asked him who is the president. his answer was ford. we should he should not vote. i put it in the safe. unfortunately, his vote was cast. it was not by him. two days later, our secretary of state quit. i don't really trust the voting system right now. when everybody is pushing for seems to be the long lines. at about the people that live among the appalachian trail that don't have the transportation to get to a polling place. i don't hear anybody talking about those people. we need to stop being democrats and republicans and we need to start being americans. we are in this together.
the hate on both sides is so thick. we need to love thy neighbor. guest: i agree. it's unfortunate that you stood in those long lines. we have the technology to stop that. we continue to suffocate access to voting. i understand what you were talking about. we have to make provisions for people who cannot stand in long lines, who should not stand in long lines, who cannot get to the polling place. that's what a national standard does. it provides for a 15 day mail an opportunity. i am glad and i appreciate you and your family understanding that he did not have the capacity to cast a ballot.
you refused to participate in that type of balloting. we are here at a juncture with people like you and many others recognizing the partisanship will hurt us. our democracy will protect us. that's what the authorization bill would do, john lewis supported wholeheartedly. no matter what part of the country they live in, areas where the lines are low, areas where it is hard to get to, people with disabilities, they can participate. this is not a partisan issue. it's about protecting our democracy. host: beverly is in wyoming.
caller: i would think they had the same rights, 15 minutes in the voting places. it is a problem when you've got a seven hour wait for the people. it is a problem. they need to fix that. they need to be reasonable. republicans are just outrageous on their laws. outrageous. it's like the lady said it, she was a democrat and went to republican. i was a republican and i went to a democrat. this is because of all the rhetoric they have and all the hatred. i'm not that type of person. i will help my neighbor. not if they are plotting to run the government.
we have to be together. host: on compromise, one about voter id? laws are put into place, are you ok with them? guest: when you talk about compromise, we have to have two parties at the table willing to have a conversation. what senator mcconnell has done, he has drawn a line in the sand and no one can cross the line. they have not come to the table to have a conversation for a compromise in a serious matter. there is nobody who is able to compromise. that's why we are at this juncture. the senate is refusing to talk to one another, especially when you have senator mcconnell telling his members you cannot
cross this line. that's what we've been confronted with. i have been part of the conversation. democratic members have been willing to talk. that's where senator manchin has been. we have not been able to get republicans to sit down at the table with a true conversation. he was the only one who had enough courage to vote for the john lewis act. we commend her for that. the action she received from her party is unconscionable. we have to move beyond this rancor. : will go to houston, texas. caller: good morning. in regard to the spirit of bipartisanship, would it be helpful and transparent to refer
back to 2005, the jimmy carter and james baker commission on elections? they outlined how to avoid fraudulent elections. for example, mail-in ballots was one of the number one issues that was of concern for a transparent and valid election. when you think about all the things in that bipartisan thing, you have james baker. that is so overlooked and never mentioned. for so many years, i watched and listened to democrats say for all four years that trump was an illegitimate president. the russian collusion never happened. we heard all about it.
it was a false narrative. the mail-in ballots, that is a recipe for fraud. the voting rolls need to be cleaned up. this conversation is immaterial when you think about balance. guest: the voting rolls are the responsibility of the state, not the federal government. some states keep cleaner roles than others. if you think we need to clean the roles, that should be state-by-state. there is nothing in this conversation about addressing voting rolls. we would have loved to have had some type of bipartisan approach. any time that is attempted, president bush spoke at the naacp convention in 2000 six.
he spoke strongly in support of reauthorization of the voting rights act. members of the senate both parties voted to reauthorize 98-0. the act is in front of the senate right now. not a single republican except centre mccoskey is willing to cast a ballot to reauthorize the voting rights act. they create a form that has been proven to have discriminatory impact on how administrators are elected. it has to go through a process to implement new rules that are reviewed to ensure they won't impact negatively those who have
been disenfranchised. that's not a hard thing to do. that has nothing to do with mail-in ballots. not a single republican with the exception of the senator murkowski is willing to say we need to protect the rights of those who have been disenfranchised. this will only change if individuals stand up and say we have to use best practices. we need to make sure the administration of elections is not a partisan activity. it's a constitutional opportunity for all of us to protect the rights of voters. host: grand rapids, michigan. caller: the first thing i want to say is that last guest, you
are getting as bad as the internet, allowing people to lie and light. you've got to be liable for telling the truth. why did you let that last guest on it. this gentleman, thank you for standing up and telling the truth. i sat on my couch and voted. nobody is going to tell me my vote was invalid. we went through this for the last 10 months. none of this stuff was proven. everything that is going on is a reaction to lies. it's also a republican takeover of power. thank you, mr. johnson. thank you. guest: the former president voted by mail.
yet, it becomes a problem. we have to address the serious misinformation in the public dialogue. we have to address how people are being misled to operate in their own personal and families interest. we cannot as a nation continue to devolve into tribalism. what we have said for this matter is every voter in all 50 states should be able to do so and have certain basic expectations. they should not wait in line for six or seven hours. there is a system that they want to volunteer their time to help support as poll workers or
election personnel. they would not be confronted with threats. we can that stand by and let the lies and misinformation continue to germinate in a way that is. it's a sad state. i am scared we are rushing back to their. host: we will go to pennsylvania. you are next. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? i am a loyal democrat. i would like to say that if trump would've won this election, we wouldn't have any of this complaining and criticizing. i voted by mail in pennsylvania. i will probably do it again. with the process we go through,
there is no fraud. you can't be fraudulent at all. the one thing i think is rigged is the electoral college. that has got to go. if a democrat would win the electoral college that trump won by the first time, you would hear a primal scream from here to the land of the dueling banjos. the election was fair. the mail-in ballots of the best way to go. guest: we have an opportunity now to push our citizens -- senators to stand up for our democracy, to not allow corporate interests to determine
how we should be able to engage in this election. those two bills simply level the field so everyone has the same expectation. it is not a partisan issue. it's an access to opportunity for all of us. we cannot send our young people to fight for a democracy that we are unwilling to fight for. republicans, democrats, stand up in this moment and say pass these acts. this is not a partisan conversation. this is an opportunity for us to protect our constitution. host: tom is in illinois. caller: i've been in hancock county. i was on the board for 15 years. when bush gore had that
election, we bought voting machines. we spent $800,000 on voting machines. then we spent another 400,000 on voting machines. we voted the handicap machine down. the board members -- we did know anyone who was blind. we have the voting machines that cost a lot of money. in illinois and california, when i go to vote, it almost seems like a waste of time to me. these blue states stay blue forever. in california, they have what's called ballot harvesting. that's where they go around. they go around to people and a
guy goes and says did you send your ballot in it? they just give it to them. host: ballot harvesting? guest: i am going to start where he started. every jurisdiction receives resources to update election machines. it was the right piece of legislation for the time. we had antiquated machines. that was a federal bill passed to ensure every county has the equipment necessary. we also expand access to voting. machines -- they had the resources to purchase. that's extremely important. this is similar to that. how do we open up access to voting?
it is not unique to california. it's not unique to any political party. we must make sure that the integrity of every ballot cast is accurate. how people vote in illinois or california is individual choices. they decide. it's based on what they see as in their interest. that something we should be proud about, even if they are cast and the outcome is different than what we would hope for. it is expectation we should control. the election was fair. it was open. it was accessible and every individual who was eligible to vote is able to participate. that's what this is about.
we must stay in that lane. if we go down the track of what has been a particular jurisdiction, that's not this conversation. every citizen should cast about. host: mike is in iowa. caller: how are you this morning? let's talk about the election and the integrity. let's talk about pennsylvania, philadelphia where they sent the republicans home and told him they were not going to do anymore accounting. they started counting immediately. let's talk about the ballot harvesting. there is so much irregularity in that. it's been proven. let's talk about the democrats.
the democrats want this bill because it's got ballot harvesting. this represents the democrats. it doesn't represent me as an independent. i voted for this thing we've got is present. i'm not sure he's running the country. host: we will stop there. guest: most importantly, there were 60 lawsuits filed. all the misinformation out there , there was an opportunity to present evidence. court after court after judge dismissed the lawsuits. more importantly, there was a call for information to prove the things you just talked about. it doesn't exist.
the judge in pennsylvania looked for the evidence of the irregularities and the vote stealing. it doesn't exist. giuliani was embarrassed in that case as he was in almost every case he entered. we have to stop with the misinformation. we can have an opinion about whoever is elected to whatever position. it should not undermine the integrity of our elections. let me be clear. this is a way to get to a more perfect election system. it creates a federal standard and we should all have the expectation no matter where we live in the country as we identify issues and work to protect those as well. host: john in florida. question or comment? caller: how are you doing?
i wonder if the association has a plan for the florida residents who would have the right to vote but they don't have the means to buy their right to vote back and systems where they were supposed to collect those means are designed to make sure the bills are never paid. it's an issue down here. there is a permanent underclass of americans who have no say in how they are governed. it's a very bad idea. young people that i know have been convicted of ballot harvesting were in north carolina. they were all republicans. it only lasted until the winston-salem journal got wind of it. thank you for the job you do. guest: what we witnessed in florida is a travesty. could have their rights
restored. most of the studies i've seen when returning citizens are able to fully engage in society, including the right to vote and cast ballots, recidivism goes down. people were celebrating because for the first time returning citizens were able to capture the voting majority to ensure their rights were stored. the state of florida instituted a restrictive process that will cause hundreds of millions of dollars. the naacp has been working with the coalition to figure out ways to get around. we will win that fight. our history is told us that when we fight for the rights of others, we will win eventually.
i don't have a specific way we are going to do that now. we will continue to work with the community to ensure their rights are restored. host: one last call for you, frank in delaware. caller: i am calling in reference to mr. johnson. he represents the naacp. i can't believe that. i've got some good african friends. they don't care about the naacp. as far as voting goes, all you have to do -- i live in delaware. i drive 10 miles. stand in line, that's the way it's got to be. it is voter id and nothing else. guest: i am glad you have that
experience when you can drive 10 miles and you don't have all the barriers. every one should have that same opportunity, the ease with which you talked about voting. it should be the ease by which every citizen should cast about. that's the thing that will protect this. host: for more information about the fight for voting rights by the naacp, go to naacp.org. you can follow on twitter as well. derrick johnson, we thank you for the conversation this morning. we will take a break. when we come back, your top news story of the week. there are the phone lines on your screen. start dialing in now.
>> the first over televised congressional hearing was august 3, 1948. a man said he didn't want to be there. he had been subpoenaed to testify. his name, whittaker chambers. an american who had been a commonest spy for the soviet union in the 1930's. he is spent years studying and researching the background and the trial of the man chambers accused of being a communist spy. his work can be seen in 38 lectures amounting to nine hours on youtube.
>> a conversation on this episode of footnotes plus. >> weekends are in intellectual feast. every saturday, you will find events and people on american history tv. on sunday, book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. it is television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore. >> washington journal continues. host: we will wrap this week with your top news story of the week. take a look at those of dominate the headlines. the supreme court yesterday announcing they oppose the
vaccine mandate for large employers, but they kept in place the mandate for certain health-care workers. you had the voting rights debate. we talked about that. u.s. russia tensions, they may be done with diplomatic talks. the january 6 committee announcing they've subpoenaed social media companies and kevin mccarthy saying he won't cooperate with that panel. on that last story, get what cnn just posted.
you said you would be willing to testify about your conversations . that was in may last year. you won't voluntarily cooperate. why should the public conclude you are trying to hide something and hide the facts from getting out? >> after january 6, who was the first person to offer a bipartisan commission to look at that? was it me? the answer is yes. nancy pelosi waited four months. in that time as we discussed many times, you watch this unfold. she prepared who could have subpoena power, she continued
that. she just played politics while the senate had two committees look at what happened january 6. the fbi was doing their own investigation. you know the role of congress, the only role we have. you asked me that question in may. that was two months before nancy pelosi decided for the first time in history to deny the minority to even put their individuals on a committee. when you ask me that question, never did i think a speaker would play such politics and appoint the chairman who starts the committee by saying the only person out of bounds is the speaker. now that we find even when we asked to preserve that
information, they will not provide it. maybe if nancy pelosi had done what other speakers would do and not play politics with it, there could've been a different answer. >> are you going to defy a subpoena? >> you have unique window into the president on that day. you were one of the pew people who spoke to him that day. doesn't the public have a right to know what the president of the united states was doing while the capital was under attack? >> the great thing about that, i didn't wait a year later. i spoke to the public. not by one network, but by many. my conversation was very short. advising the president what was happening here. there is nothing i could provide the committee for legislation
moving forward. there is nothing in that realm. it is pure politics. host: kevin mccarthy yesterday. top news story of the week. we will go to clarksville, tennessee. good morning to you. caller: good morning. how are you? my top news story is we are having a conversation about election integrity. i would like to know how they feel about the fact that we've had five states admit fake electors. host: willie in texas. caller: good morning.
quickly, it's sad how the relevance of cnn and the naacp has waned over the decades. you've got cnn talking about a story of hearsay between donald trump and kevin mccarthy. they ran with the story as if there was any relevance. this mr. johnson you just had on, he's the ceo of the naacp. every time he was in the segment hit with a question that deals with the key point of the legislation, he takes on an emotional rant about coming together. you asked him a question about id. he totally went around it. he didn't answer the question. when someone asked about ballot
harvesting. it's pretty sad. mr. cuccinelli, he did not use the word light. this guy used it so many times. the last thing is, i like how you used to do on c-span. you had to competing sides of the issue on the same broadcast. if that would have this time, everyone would've seen what a fraud mr. johnson and the naacp is. host: we try to put opposing views together. it's more difficult during the pandemic. sometimes, it doesn't work out with schedules. we try to balance it out.
ryan in michigan. let me push the button. there we go. caller: can you hear me? host: we can. caller: i watched the president make his speech and it all got ugly. my brother and i were veterans. another human being in this case trump could make a speech and then the outcome of that, i didn't find any inflammatory words were he said go in there and tear up the building. not even close to that. this is just ridiculous. this is obvious politics. are there going to be thought police running around?
2001, the patriot act under bush. we have lost rights. we have weaponized the intelligence outfits. you saw it with cold meat. they're not being honest with each other. host: on the voting rights debate, the hill reporting that senator schumer will schedule the vote on these voting rights bills for tuesday next week. he is missing his own deadline. in postponing the voting rights debate, he cited the expected winter storm coming our way and covid. a senator tested positive. on top of that, senator kyrsten
sinema came to the floor and publicly announced she is not in favor of changing the rules for these bills. here she is. >> nearly every partyline response to the problems we face, every action taken to protect a cherished value has led us to more division. not less. the impact is clear. the steady escalation of tit for tat in which each new majority weakens the guardrails of the senate that excludes input from the other party. furthering resentment and anger. democrats in crease use of
cloture for nominees. that led to similar tactics by republicans. the 2013 decision to eliminate the 60 vote threshold for most nominations led directly to a response in 2017 by senate republicans. they eliminated the threshold for supreme court nominees. these actions by both parties have led to our current judiciary and supreme court which is considering questions regarding fundamental rights americans have enjoyed for decades. a limited the 60 vote threshold with the thinnest possible majority. they will not guarantee that we
prevent demagogues from winning office. some who undermine the principles of democracy have already been elected. it will simply guarantee that we lose critical tool that we need to safeguard our democracy. it is clear that the two-party strategies are not working, not for either side. especially not for the country. host: the democratic senator from arizona. paul is in arizona. what do you make of your senator? caller: that wasn't exactly my point. i won't vote for her again. i've got four little points. number one is the supreme court, conservatives voted for death for american workers.
the lady in michigan who called on the republican line said she changed from democrat to republican. she might want to remember who stormed the capital of michigan with armed weapons. it was not democrats. the guy in delaware who said he had to drive 10 minutes and everybody should stand in line and vote in person, i wonder if he would drive if he had to stand for seven hours? like the people in georgia had to. thank you. host: mike in florida. good morning. caller: i am actually -- i don't know why i dialed the independent line. host: go ahead. caller: i just moved to florida three years ago. i grew up in illinois.
let me tell you how illinois elections are run. i was an election judge in my precinct. that was 2016. when i went for training, we don't use ids. we compare signatures. during training, they said even if the signature does not look like the person's signature on record, give them a regular ballot. tell me that fraud cannot occur there. also, they have voter registration the same day. if a person registers the same day, they are supposed to get a provisional ballot. in my precinct, the lady judge
-- election judge there was giving them regular ballots. tell me that election fraud doesn't happen in illinois. host: does it happen at such a high level that it changes the outcome of the election? caller: i don't know. if you are giving out ballots to people who are not the ones, i used to fake my mother signature signing notes in high school. how do you know other people aren't doing the same. host: mary is in montana. caller: good morning. my biggest story of the week would be our president biden. his speech on tuesday was
absolutely horrible. he is supposed to be a uniter. he's been anything but. he has failed at everything he's done. i will tell you what, this country deserves better than him. that's all i have to say. host: top news story of the week. caller: it goes back to the election thing. thank goodness for brian lamb. i remember when he was in indiana. you talked about somebody came on about the election and how the states run the election. you pointed out in the constitution a thing that says the congress may make laws, you left something off.
that's only for the legislative blanch. -- branch. they are found over in section two. as far as that, it takes a constitutional amendment. they have all been passed to change the way the president is elected. there are two things. the little chart you put up, those two words about representatives and senators were missing. it's a disingenuous thing. the congress cannot set national elections for the representatives and for the senators.
the constitution was written, the senators were appointed by the governor. the 17th amendment change that. it kind of got her full there a little bit. otherwise, you are doing a great job. i do enjoy watching you. host: in reaction to the news that senator sinema would not support changing the rules, martin luther king jr. the third put out a statement. he said history will remember her unkindly. he also said while she is stubborn and her optimism, black and brown voters are losing their right to vote. we will hear more today. he will talk to the washington post. we will have coverage of that on c-span at 11:00 eastern time.
you can download our video mobile app called c-span now. it's free. denise in oklahoma. good morning. caller: i'm calling about the tests. where is it? i have insurance, i'm being penalized for pretesting. i have to pay for mine even though i have insurance. i have to pay up front and then get reimbursed. host: how long does that process take? caller: i haven't experienced it yet. it doesn't take effect until january 15. my insurance company can't provide me with information how to get reimbursed. host: john in pennsylvania. caller: how are you doing?
good morning. i've got a couple of questions. her constituents should voter out. we wouldn't be in the situation of mr. trump would have just told the truth. that's all we want. thanks and have a great day. host: we will leave it there. we are done here on washington journal. we will be back tomorrow morning. enjoy your weekend. line >> today, martin luther kine
third, the oldest son of the late civil rights leader, will talk about voting rights and the lessons from his father's legacy. they will do the march in washington i martin luther king junior day. that conversation starts at 11 eastern. >> the capitol police steve and others testified on capitol hill on staffing needs, threats against numbers of congress and coordination against various law enforcement agencies. watch the house appropriations subcommittee tonight, online or full coverage on our new video app. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television
companies and more including guide broadband. ♪ >> buckeye broadband supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> georgia governor brian kemp delivered the 2022 state of the state address from atlanta. he focused on his administration's record on education, support for law enforcement and outline his budget priorities. [applause] gov. kemp: thank you.