Latest / Bloomberg Law / Could Trump Disrupt the Midterms?

Transcript

Could Trump Disrupt the Midterms? · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
0:08
Speaker 2: In September at the Republican Midterm Convention, President Trump led
0:13
Speaker 2: the crowd in a mock pledge to cheat in the
0:17
Speaker 2: midterm elections.
0:18
Speaker 3: I will go out with my family, my friends.
0:22
Speaker 4: I'll do it anyway. I don't care if I'm registered
0:25
Speaker 4: or not.
0:25
Speaker 3: I'm going to try and cheat like hell like they do.
0:29
Speaker 3: They never there's never been bigger cheaters.
0:31
Speaker 4: I don't care.
0:33
Speaker 3: I am going to go out and I'm going to get.
0:35
Speaker 1: My friends, my family.
0:36
Speaker 3: And we are going to vote on November 3rd or
0:40
Speaker 3: we are going to vote before that.
0:44
Speaker 2: That adds to fears many people have that the administration
0:48
Speaker 2: will not play fair in the midterms. For years, Trump
0:51
Speaker 2: has made baseless claims of widespread voter fraud, and his
0:56
Speaker 2: administration has been pursuing extraordinary legal tactics to try to
1:01
Speaker 2: assert greater federal control over the upcoming elections. One of
1:05
Speaker 2: the latest is a lawsuit to make California set aside
1:10
Speaker 2: mail-in ballots of 20,000 suspected non-citizens. Joining me is Jonathan Diaz,
1:16
Speaker 2: Director of Voting Advocacy and Partnerships at the Campaign Legal Center. Jonathan, yesterday,
1:22
Speaker 2: federal agents arrested 11 non-citizens in California who were charged
1:27
Speaker 2: with crimes, including fraudulently registering to vote in U.S. elections.
1:33
Speaker 2: What's going on here? Is the Justice Department trying to
1:36
Speaker 2: show that it's lawsuit against California has validity?
1:40
Speaker 4: I mean, to me, this all looks like political theater.
1:44
Speaker 4: There is no reason for the number two official at
1:49
Speaker 4: the Department of Justice to be giving national press conferences
1:54
Speaker 4: for offenses like these that are relatively minor and with
1:59
Speaker 4: such a small number of people accused of them. There's
2:01
Speaker 4: no reason to be doing, you know, raids in the
2:05
Speaker 4: twilight hours, arresting grandparents with, you know, a whole paramilitary
2:10
Speaker 4: force in a suburban neighborhood for an alleged nonviolent crime,
2:14
Speaker 4: other than to send a message by the federal government
2:18
Speaker 4: about what they think about our elections and how far
2:23
Speaker 4: they are willing to go to interfere in these midterms.
2:26
Speaker 4: You against the backdrop of a civil lawsuit that the
2:35
Speaker 4: Department of Justice filed less than three weeks from Election Day,
2:38
Speaker 4: trying to force California and Los Angeles County not to
2:43
Speaker 4: count tens of thousands of ballots just because the federal
2:46
Speaker 4: government says so. And this is just a continuation of
2:50
Speaker 4: the now years-long campaign that this administration has been engaged
2:54
Speaker 4: in to undermine our electoral system and to attempt to insert.
3:00
Speaker 4: The federal executive branch into the administration of our elections, where, frankly,
3:05
Speaker 4: they don't belong, where the Constitution gives them no power,
3:08
Speaker 4: federal law gives them no power, and where they have
3:10
Speaker 4: no particular information or expertise, you know, that should override
3:15
Speaker 4: that of our state and local election officials who are
3:18
Speaker 4: the ones who actually maintain these voter rolls and run
3:20
Speaker 4: these elections.
3:21
Speaker 2: So they said 20,000 people are on the rolls that
3:24
Speaker 2: shouldn't be. I mean, wouldn't California want to check that
3:27
Speaker 2: out anyway?
3:29
Speaker 4: Of course. And, you know, California election officials are required
3:33
Speaker 4: under both federal and state law to engage in regular
3:37
Speaker 4: voter list maintenance to keep their roles up to date.
3:40
Speaker 4: But federal law prohibits the systematic removal of voters in
3:45
Speaker 4: the last 90 days before an election because Congress recognized
3:50
Speaker 4: that when you're doing a large scale program like this,
3:53
Speaker 4: there's a real significant chance that you could get it wrong.
3:57
Speaker 4: And the removal of an eligible voter from the rolls
4:00
Speaker 4: right before an election, preventing them from participating in that
4:03
Speaker 4: election is a major problem. You are effectively disenfranchising that voter.
4:08
Speaker 4: So California officials, like election officials in every other state,
4:12
Speaker 4: do this regularly, just not right now, right before an election.
4:16
Speaker 4: And the federal government is not involved in this process.
4:20
Speaker 4: And we've seen over the last year, especially, DHS and
4:25
Speaker 4: DOJ coming to the states and saying, you know, we
4:29
Speaker 4: have found exorbitant numbers of ineligible voters on your rolls.
4:35
Speaker 4: And when the election officials look under the hood and
4:38
Speaker 4: they check the numbers, DOJ is wrong. They came to
4:42
Speaker 4: Nevada earlier this year and said that they had found,
4:46
Speaker 4: you know, 180,000 or so ineligible non-citizens on the rolls.
4:52
Speaker 4: And Nevada said, great, send us the data.
4:54
Speaker 2: We'll look.
4:55
Speaker 4: DOJ came back and said, okay, actually, it's really more
4:58
Speaker 4: like 200. And Nevada said, great, give us those 200.
5:01
Speaker 4: And they looked, they were all citizens, every single one.
5:05
Speaker 4: So DOJ and DHS are using unreliable data sources, methods
5:10
Speaker 4: that they won't explain to the states or to the
5:13
Speaker 4: counties about how they came up with this list. And
5:15
Speaker 4: now at the 11th hour, trying to force California not
5:19
Speaker 4: to count tens of thousands of ballots.
5:21
Speaker 2: Do you think a judge would make the state set
5:23
Speaker 2: aside the mail-in ballots of the 20,000 suspected non-citizens?
5:29
Speaker 4: Well, they shouldn't. I mean, the federal government has demanded
5:34
Speaker 4: that Los Angeles County segregate the ballots of all of
5:38
Speaker 4: the people on the federal government's list and not count
5:41
Speaker 4: them unless they can prove the citizenship of each of
5:45
Speaker 4: those individuals to the federal government's satisfaction. The federal government
5:48
Speaker 4: can't just make those demands. If the Los Angeles County
5:52
Speaker 4: recorder registrar did that, he would be violating federal law
5:56
Speaker 4: by not counting the ballots of eligible registered citizens. DOJ's case,
6:01
Speaker 4: I mean, flimsy and frivolous doesn't even really begin to
6:04
Speaker 4: cover it. They brought one claim against California under the
6:07
Speaker 4: Supremacy Clause. They are arguing that the Supremacy Clause means
6:11
Speaker 4: that the federal government can just tell the states what
6:14
Speaker 4: to do and the states have to do it no
6:15
Speaker 4: matter what. And that's not how that works. So, you know, under...
6:20
Speaker 4: any kind of reasonable analysis, this claim should be laughed
6:25
Speaker 4: out of court. But we are in, you know, upside
6:30
Speaker 4: down times where the federal government is not feeling particularly
6:34
Speaker 4: constrained by laws or by courts. So we, my colleagues
6:38
Speaker 4: at Campaign Legal Center, have moved to intervene in this
6:40
Speaker 4: case on behalf of the NAACP and LULAC, both of
6:43
Speaker 4: whom have tens of thousands of members in Los Angeles
6:46
Speaker 4: and in California generally. because we want to make sure
6:49
Speaker 4: that this is not just the first salvo in the
6:54
Speaker 4: federal government's attempt to interfere with these midterm elections. As
6:57
Speaker 4: we're recording this, we're two weeks out. Election officials have
7:00
Speaker 4: more than enough on their plates to process mail ballots
7:04
Speaker 4: and open up polling places and check IDs and do
7:07
Speaker 4: all the things that they need to do to run
7:09
Speaker 4: the election. They don't have time to be dealing with
7:14
Speaker 4: frivolous intrusions by the federal government. So, you know, I
7:18
Speaker 4: am optimistic that the court will see this for what
7:22
Speaker 4: it is, a desperate political ploy by an unpopular president
7:27
Speaker 4: to try and convince his supporters and the public that
7:30
Speaker 4: election results that don't go his way can't be trusted.
7:33
Speaker 4: But I don't think that he'll succeed.
7:35
Speaker 2: Let's talk about some of the things that people are
7:38
Speaker 2: concerned might happen on election day. Some seem absurd and
7:45
Speaker 2: others seem plausible. One that's mentioned over and over again
7:50
Speaker 2: is the possibility that federal agents may appear at or
7:55
Speaker 2: near the polls. The Secretary of Homeland Security hasn't ruled
8:00
Speaker 2: out the presence of ICE agents at polling locations. There
8:06
Speaker 2: is also concern that troops could be sent to polling locations.
8:11
Speaker 2: I mean, is that possible?
8:12
Speaker 4: You know, anything is possible, but it could not be
8:16
Speaker 4: clearer under federal law that the deployment of armed federal agents,
8:21
Speaker 4: whether military or civilian, to any place where an election
8:25
Speaker 4: is being held is flatly illegal. It is a federal
8:29
Speaker 4: crime to order armed men to the polls. So not
8:33
Speaker 4: just the soldiers or the FBI or ICE agents who
8:37
Speaker 4: go there, but whoever tells them to go there is
8:39
Speaker 4: on the hook for potential federal criminal liabilities. It's not
8:44
Speaker 4: a prohibition that has ever really been tested because we've
8:47
Speaker 4: never had an administration who was willing to deploy armed
8:51
Speaker 4: agents of the federal government to a polling place. I
8:54
Speaker 4: think if that's something that we did see, it would
8:57
Speaker 4: be met with such swift legal response that they wouldn't
9:03
Speaker 4: be there long. But even the apprehension that federal agents
9:07
Speaker 4: might be deployed to the polls already has a chilling
9:09
Speaker 4: effect on voters. It's the one thing I get asked
9:12
Speaker 4: about most. by people outside of my work life and
9:15
Speaker 4: my regular life. People are worried about it because people
9:18
Speaker 4: like Secretary Mullen and FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney
9:24
Speaker 4: General Blanch keep bringing it up. They keep saying, oh, well,
9:27
Speaker 4: I don't know, maybe we will, even though they know
9:29
Speaker 4: it's illegal. And I think that's the point. They want
9:31
Speaker 4: people to be afraid. They want people not to participate
9:35
Speaker 4: in the elections, whether or not they actually send agents
9:39
Speaker 4: to the polls or not. But it is illegal. completely illegal.
9:44
Speaker 4: And we, you know, our partners in the kind of
9:47
Speaker 4: nonpartisan election protection space are prepared to respond if it happens.
9:52
Speaker 4: I think that's one of the many reasons why we
9:54
Speaker 4: have encouraged people to make a plan to vote as
9:59
Speaker 4: early as is possible in your state or county. If
10:02
Speaker 4: you have the ability to vote by mail, if you
10:05
Speaker 4: have the ability to vote early in person, go. Don't
10:08
Speaker 4: go by yourself. Take people with you. Have a backup plan.
10:12
Speaker 4: Don't let fear or the possibility of federal intrusion prevent
10:16
Speaker 4: you from exercising your freedom to vote in this election.
10:21
Speaker 2: So now federal election monitors and the Justice Department plans
10:25
Speaker 2: to deploy a thousand federal election monitors. That's the largest
10:29
Speaker 2: number in history, nearly double the numbers deployed in the
10:33
Speaker 2: 2024 elections. So it's been done before, but not with
10:38
Speaker 2: a Justice Department that doesn't seem to be trying to
10:42
Speaker 2: protect you know, the ability of people to vote. I mean,
10:46
Speaker 2: is there danger that the election monitors might interfere?
10:50
Speaker 4: Well, again, there shouldn't be. You know, this is a program,
10:55
Speaker 4: like you said, that has been around for decades. The
10:58
Speaker 4: Department of Justice has long sent monitors, usually attorneys from
11:02
Speaker 4: the Civil Rights Division, out into the field to just monitor,
11:06
Speaker 4: to observe the conduct of elections and, you know, to
11:10
Speaker 4: ensure that federal civil rights laws are being followed. Things
11:17
Speaker 4: like making sure that polling places are accessible to voters
11:21
Speaker 4: with disabilities, that jurisdictions covered by Section 203 of the
11:24
Speaker 4: Voting Rights Act have translated voting materials in the covered languages,
11:29
Speaker 4: that voters are not being turned away in a discriminatory
11:32
Speaker 4: or unlawful fashion. But the DOJ observers are not there
11:36
Speaker 4: to correct problems in real time. They are not there
11:39
Speaker 4: to intercede. They are not there to interrupt the conduct
11:43
Speaker 4: of the election. They are there to observe and then
11:45
Speaker 4: report back to main justice and potentially then initiate some
11:50
Speaker 4: kind of civil rights action by the government to protect voters. Now,
11:55
Speaker 4: our current civil rights division is not super interested in
11:59
Speaker 4: enforcing the civil rights laws on the books. What they
12:03
Speaker 4: are interested in is weaponizing claims of voter fraud and
12:07
Speaker 4: going after voters and election officials who they think have
12:11
Speaker 4: violated some kind of criminal law. The Department of Justice
12:14
Speaker 4: has also seen a massive exodus in terms of experienced attorneys,
12:20
Speaker 4: especially in the Civil Rights Division. They have staffed up
12:23
Speaker 4: with people who have promoted conspiracy theories and falsehoods about
12:27
Speaker 4: our elections. people with, you know, relative inexperience or who
12:32
Speaker 4: have been engaged in proven misconduct in their careers. So
12:36
Speaker 4: I think that there is cause to be a little anxious,
12:39
Speaker 4: a little nervous about how these observers might behave. But,
12:42
Speaker 4: you know, federal election monitors, just like everyone else, are
12:45
Speaker 4: subject to restrictions around voter intimidation. They cannot go into
12:49
Speaker 4: non-public areas of a polling place. And if election officials
12:53
Speaker 4: tell them that they have to leave, they have to leave.
12:56
Speaker 4: So again, I think that it's worth keeping an eye on.
13:00
Speaker 4: I would expect some of these DOJ officials under this
13:04
Speaker 4: Department of Justice and Harmeet Dhillon to make a lot
13:08
Speaker 4: of hay out of anything that they see and to
13:10
Speaker 4: spread potential misinformation about how the elections are being run.
13:15
Speaker 4: But they should not have the actual ability to interfere
13:20
Speaker 4: with the conduct of the election. And if they try,
13:22
Speaker 4: I think that they will suffer the consequences. under any
13:27
Speaker 4: number of state and federal laws that prohibit election interference.
13:29
Speaker 2: Coming up, a new poll shows that the vast majority
13:33
Speaker 2: of Americans believe Trump won't accept the results of the
13:37
Speaker 2: midterm elections if Republicans suffer losses. This is Bloomberg. For
13:43
Speaker 2: more than 10 years, President Trump has made baseless accusations
13:48
Speaker 2: of widespread voter fraud. In 2016, before he won the
13:53
Speaker 2: presidency from Hillary Clinton.
13:55
Speaker 3: The election is being rigged by corrupt media pushing false
13:59
Speaker 3: allegations and outright lies in an effort to elect Hillary
14:04
Speaker 3: Clinton president.
14:07
Speaker 2: And in 2020, before he lost the presidency to Joe Biden.
14:10
Speaker 1: It's a rigged election. It's the only way we're going
14:12
Speaker 1: to lose.
14:13
Speaker 2: So is it any wonder that, according to a survey
14:16
Speaker 2: conducted by The Washington Post, ABC News and Ipsos, Seven
14:21
Speaker 2: out of 10 Americans believe that Trump will not accept
14:25
Speaker 2: the results of the midterm elections if Republicans suffer losses.
14:30
Speaker 2: I've been talking to Jonathan Diaz of the Campaign Legal Center. Jonathan,
14:35
Speaker 2: President Trump is still arguing that he won the 2020 election.
14:40
Speaker 2: So in the midterms, if Republicans suffer losses, we can
14:45
Speaker 2: expect to hear the same claims of non-citizens voting in
14:50
Speaker 2: voting machines being compromised and who knows what else. So
14:55
Speaker 2: then might the government try to seize ballots during the
15:00
Speaker 2: counting process, getting a warrant to do so?
15:03
Speaker 4: They may try. I fully expect the president to continue
15:08
Speaker 4: to make his false claims about how the elections are run.
15:11
Speaker 4: He's never really stopped since 2020 and actually long before that.
15:15
Speaker 4: I am old enough to remember the president saying even
15:18
Speaker 4: after he won in 2016, that he would have won
15:21
Speaker 4: by more, that New Hampshire was stolen from him. And
15:24
Speaker 4: that was an election he won. So he's going to
15:27
Speaker 4: make wild claims about whatever comes to mind, voting machines,
15:33
Speaker 4: mail ballots, whether voters are eligible or not. I don't
15:36
Speaker 4: think he is going to be particularly circumspect in his comments.
15:41
Speaker 4: And I'm sure that his, I'm trying to think of
15:45
Speaker 4: a nicer word, his deputies, let's say, at the Department
15:49
Speaker 4: of Justice and at DHS are going to take whatever
15:52
Speaker 4: comments he makes and run with them and try and
15:55
Speaker 4: use them to justify intervening in the election in some way.
15:59
Speaker 4: I don't think it will work. It didn't work in 2020.
16:02
Speaker 4: It didn't work in 2022. You know, it's not going
16:05
Speaker 4: to work this time. And I think that the American
16:08
Speaker 4: people are pretty tired of hearing about all of this,
16:13
Speaker 4: you In 2024, he won. He won the White House.
16:19
Speaker 4: His party won the House and the Senate. And he
16:22
Speaker 4: still has not stopped crowing about how rigged the elections are.
16:28
Speaker 4: But he won. He and his party are in power.
16:31
Speaker 4: And I think voters around the country are hearing him
16:34
Speaker 4: continue on this track and thinking to themselves, well, wait
16:38
Speaker 4: a minute. If the elections are rigged, how did you win?
16:41
Speaker 4: This doesn't make any sense. People are worried about, you know,
16:44
Speaker 4: the price of gas and the price of groceries and seeing,
16:48
Speaker 4: you know, armed federal agents on their streets. And I
16:52
Speaker 4: think the public is tired of these conspiracy theories. And
16:57
Speaker 4: it's one thing for the president to say all of
17:00
Speaker 4: this stuff, you know, on Truth Social or, you know,
17:03
Speaker 4: on TV at a press gaggle or whatever. It's another
17:06
Speaker 4: thing for the attorney general or other, you know, DOJ
17:10
Speaker 4: attorneys to stand up in court under oath and say
17:14
Speaker 4: the same things. They have to have evidence to back
17:17
Speaker 4: up their claims. And if they don't, they are going
17:20
Speaker 4: to lose. And they may find themselves facing contempt or
17:24
Speaker 4: other professional sanctions if they try and bring these false
17:27
Speaker 4: claims in front of a court.
17:28
Speaker 2: He doesn't like voting machines. He wants paper ballots. But
17:31
Speaker 2: aren't voting machines backed up by paper ballots?
17:36
Speaker 1: Yes.
17:37
Speaker 4: There is a voter verifiable paper trail in virtually every
17:41
Speaker 4: jurisdiction in the country. The tabulators that count the votes
17:47
Speaker 4: are often more accurate than a hand count would be.
17:51
Speaker 4: Hand counting by human beings is actually far more inaccurate
17:55
Speaker 4: than machine tabulation. And every single election jurisdiction in the
18:00
Speaker 4: country before the election happens does public testing of all
18:04
Speaker 4: of their voting machines. It's usually called logic and accuracy
18:07
Speaker 4: testing to make sure that the machines are marking the
18:10
Speaker 4: ballots in the way in which the voter intends, that
18:12
Speaker 4: they are reading the ballots in a way that corresponds
18:15
Speaker 4: to how the voter marked it. That's why we have
18:18
Speaker 4: recounts and audits and all of the post-election processes to
18:22
Speaker 4: make sure. That's why it sometimes takes a while to
18:24
Speaker 4: know what the final results are, because we have all
18:27
Speaker 4: of these processes in place to ensure the accuracy of
18:30
Speaker 4: our voting system. And many of the things that the
18:34
Speaker 4: Trump administration has been engaged in over the last two
18:37
Speaker 4: years when it comes to elections are would not make
18:39
Speaker 4: any of these processes more accurate. In fact, would likely
18:42
Speaker 4: make things less accurate and take longer. Because really, the
18:47
Speaker 4: only thing that the president is concerned with is making
18:50
Speaker 4: sure that he doesn't lose. And whether that means throwing
18:53
Speaker 4: out all the machines or preventing people who he thinks
18:55
Speaker 4: won't support him from voting, he doesn't really care. And
18:59
Speaker 4: so the administration, they're grabbing at every possible lever within
19:04
Speaker 4: reach to try and stem the tide of what seems
19:09
Speaker 4: likely to be a bad midterm for their party because
19:13
Speaker 4: of the president's unpopularity and because of the way that
19:16
Speaker 4: the polls are looking. But fortunately, the Constitution is still
19:21
Speaker 4: around and federal and state laws still exist. And the
19:25
Speaker 4: courts have held, at least on elections, and judges appointed
19:30
Speaker 4: by presidents of both parties, including President Trump, have said,
19:34
Speaker 4: we are not going to let the executive branch interfere
19:38
Speaker 4: in our electoral process in violation of the Constitution and
19:41
Speaker 4: the law.
19:42
Speaker 2: So everyone remembers that infamous call to Brad Raffensperger about
19:46
Speaker 2: finding 11,700, I think it was, votes. Now you have
19:51
Speaker 2: more election officials, state election officials, who have bought into
19:57
Speaker 2: or seemingly bought into the Trump fraud in the elections.
20:01
Speaker 2: I mean, is there a danger that those officials could
20:05
Speaker 2: hold up counting or, I mean, in some other way interfere?
20:10
Speaker 4: There could be. I mean, I don't actually think that
20:13
Speaker 4: there are more state and county officials who are aligned
20:17
Speaker 4: with the president's views on elections now than there were
20:20
Speaker 4: in 24 or 22. There are certainly more federal officials
20:24
Speaker 4: who see things that way. But federal officials don't run elections.
20:28
Speaker 4: State officials do. And I think we're seeing more and
20:31
Speaker 4: more pushback from state and local election officials in a
20:35
Speaker 4: bipartisan way to the federal government's attempted intrusions into election administration.
20:42
Speaker 4: When the case about the president's executive order on mail
20:45
Speaker 4: voting and the USPS proposed rule was at the Supreme Court,
20:50
Speaker 4: there was an amicus brief filed by, I think, six
20:52
Speaker 4: or eight Republican secretaries of state who filed a brief saying,
20:57
Speaker 4: this needs to stop. This is not a way to
21:00
Speaker 4: run elections. This is making our jobs harder. This is
21:02
Speaker 4: not the federal government's role. The lieutenant governor of Utah,
21:06
Speaker 4: who is their chief election official, has been really vocal
21:10
Speaker 4: about the ways in which the federal government is making
21:13
Speaker 4: election administration harder in her state. The Republican governor of Wyoming,
21:18
Speaker 4: maybe the reddest state in America, was really critical about
21:22
Speaker 4: the behavior of DOJ observers during their primary elections in Wyoming.
21:26
Speaker 4: There will always be some state and local officials who
21:29
Speaker 4: are willing to throw a wrench in the gears for
21:32
Speaker 4: political gain. And fortunately, we have legal tools to respond
21:36
Speaker 4: to that. We've seen that before when county officials or
21:39
Speaker 4: state officials threaten not to certify results. There are judicial
21:42
Speaker 4: mechanisms to compel that certification and make sure every vote
21:45
Speaker 4: is counted. But I think more and more we are
21:47
Speaker 4: seeing election officials from both parties who are also just
21:50
Speaker 4: tired of being made the scapegoat for political losses and
21:55
Speaker 4: tired of having themselves and their families and their staffs
21:59
Speaker 4: thrown to the wolves and having the president point his
22:02
Speaker 4: supporters at them for harassment. I meet with election officials
22:06
Speaker 4: all the time. And I have heard, they have played
22:08
Speaker 4: for me recordings of the death threats that they get
22:11
Speaker 4: on their home phones or to their offices, to their staffs,
22:14
Speaker 4: just for doing their jobs. And I think election officials
22:17
Speaker 4: are fed up with getting that kind of treatment from
22:20
Speaker 4: the president, from the White House. And they are public servants.
22:24
Speaker 4: Nobody gets into election administration for the money. They're doing
22:26
Speaker 4: it because they believe in democracy, because they believe in
22:29
Speaker 4: serving their communities and in making sure that that their constituents,
22:35
Speaker 4: the people in their states and counties, are able to
22:38
Speaker 4: cast their ballots freely and fairly and securely.
22:40
Speaker 2: I take it that they are concerned. Are they taking
22:44
Speaker 2: any specific steps beyond what they normally do?
22:48
Speaker 4: I think so. I mean, election officials have never really
22:50
Speaker 4: had to worry about the federal government before during an election.
22:55
Speaker 4: If anything, the federal government used to be a really
22:57
Speaker 4: key partner for state and local election officials. You know,
23:01
Speaker 4: there was an entire agency within DHS called CISA, the
23:05
Speaker 4: Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, that provided resources and trainings
23:11
Speaker 4: to election officials on how to keep their, you know,
23:14
Speaker 4: data systems secure, how to keep their polling places safe.
23:19
Speaker 4: You know, the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Offices used to
23:21
Speaker 4: coordinate with local law enforcement and election officials so that
23:25
Speaker 4: they could, you know, respond to things like in 2024,
23:28
Speaker 4: there were bomb threats at polling places in Atlanta and Philadelphia,
23:32
Speaker 4: and the federal government helped to coordinate the response so
23:35
Speaker 4: that polling places could reopen. That is mostly gone. There
23:39
Speaker 4: is really no trust from state and local election officials
23:42
Speaker 4: to the federal government because for two years now, the
23:45
Speaker 4: federal government has been trying to get in their way.
23:48
Speaker 4: And so I think, you know, state and local election
23:49
Speaker 4: officials are talking to their attorneys to make sure that
23:53
Speaker 4: they know how to respond. If you know, there is
23:56
Speaker 4: a deployment of federal agents to the polls, or if
23:59
Speaker 4: federal law enforcement shows up with a warrant trying to
24:02
Speaker 4: seize ballots or voting machines, you know, because they have
24:05
Speaker 4: to be ready. The same way that, you know, election
24:08
Speaker 4: officials in the Gulf prepare for hurricanes, I think you're
24:11
Speaker 4: seeing election officials across the country prepare for the possibility
24:15
Speaker 4: of federal interference in the conduct of the election.
24:18
Speaker 2: The Trump administration has threatened election officials with prosecution. Are
24:24
Speaker 2: they concerned about that as well?
24:25
Speaker 4: I don't know if concerned is the right word. You know,
24:29
Speaker 4: I think for some of them, they are used to
24:31
Speaker 4: it by now, unfortunately, to getting these threats of prosecution from,
24:35
Speaker 4: you know, Todd Blanch and before him, Pam Bondi and
24:38
Speaker 4: from the president himself. But, you know, they know their role.
24:43
Speaker 4: They know their laws that they have to follow. the
24:46
Speaker 4: attorneys general of the states and the secretaries of state
24:49
Speaker 4: and their, you know, equivalents and, you know, different states
24:51
Speaker 4: use different terminology, but the chief election officers of each state,
24:54
Speaker 4: you know, they've unfortunately over the last couple of years
24:57
Speaker 4: gotten a lot of practice standing up to threats from
25:00
Speaker 4: the president, both before and after he retook office and
25:03
Speaker 4: from the department of justice. Even in the last week,
25:06
Speaker 4: we've seen DOJ make threats of criminal prosecution against election officials. And,
25:11
Speaker 4: you know, that's not how democracy is supposed to happen
25:14
Speaker 4: in America. You know, it is far more reminiscent of
25:18
Speaker 4: other kind of more repressive regimes across the world. But
25:22
Speaker 4: election officials are, I think, much tougher than most people realize,
25:26
Speaker 4: especially given the threats that they have faced over the
25:30
Speaker 4: last several years. And I think that they are ready
25:33
Speaker 4: for whatever comes their.
25:34
Speaker 1: Way this fall.
25:35
Speaker 2: I wonder if voters are going to be confused or
25:38
Speaker 2: intimidated by what might happen, even if nothing does, in fact, happen.
25:44
Speaker 4: I hope not. You know, for most voters, going to
25:48
Speaker 4: vote in this election will look very similar to how
25:51
Speaker 4: it did in 2024 and 2022. There haven't actually been
25:55
Speaker 4: that many kind of operational or administrative changes. Everything that
26:01
Speaker 4: the White House has tried to do to change election
26:04
Speaker 4: rules has failed. So for most people, this election will
26:08
Speaker 4: look very similar to any other. For some people, it
26:11
Speaker 4: will look different. The redistricting battles of the last year
26:16
Speaker 4: mean that some people are going to be in a
26:18
Speaker 4: different congressional district than they were six months ago. And
26:21
Speaker 4: the races on their ballot might not be the ones
26:23
Speaker 4: that they expect. And for some people, especially in communities
26:26
Speaker 4: that have been, frankly, terrorized by ICE over the last
26:30
Speaker 4: several months... I think there is going to be quite
26:32
Speaker 4: a bit of apprehension and fear about what could happen
26:36
Speaker 4: to them if they go out to a polling place.
26:39
Speaker 4: I think that apprehension is reasonable, even if the actual
26:43
Speaker 4: risk of direct intervention by the feds into the election,
26:46
Speaker 4: I think, is probably less than most people think. They
26:49
Speaker 4: just don't have the capacity to be at every polling
26:54
Speaker 4: place in America. They just can't do it. But even
26:56
Speaker 4: if they're only at a few, or even if they
26:59
Speaker 4: might be at a few, and that's enough to keep
27:01
Speaker 4: people from voting. That's a problem for democracy. That's why,
27:05
Speaker 4: you know, you've seen so much litigation over the last,
27:08
Speaker 4: you know, six months, especially, because there is a whole
27:11
Speaker 4: constellation of, you know, legal organizations working to make sure
27:16
Speaker 4: that these elections remain free and fair. And so for
27:20
Speaker 4: voters who are feeling unsure about, you know, their safety
27:26
Speaker 4: and or whether or not their ballot will be counted,
27:29
Speaker 4: My message to them is, yes, your vote will count.
27:32
Speaker 4: And from my perspective, the more that external forces are
27:37
Speaker 4: working to keep you from exercising your freedom to vote,
27:41
Speaker 4: the more important it is that you actually do. Don't
27:44
Speaker 4: let fear or bullying prevent you from having your voice
27:48
Speaker 4: heard in this election. And for voters who see something
27:52
Speaker 4: that they think is inappropriate, illegal, that makes them feel
27:56
Speaker 4: unsafe casting their ballot, I would encourage everyone to report
28:00
Speaker 4: any incident at or near the polls to the National
28:03
Speaker 4: Nonpartisan Election Protection Hotline at 866-OUR-VOTE.
28:07
Speaker 2: Let's hope it's just an ordinary, run-of-the-mill election. Thanks so much, Jonathan.
28:13
Speaker 2: That's Jonathan Diaz, Director of Voting Advocacy and Partnerships at
28:17
Speaker 2: the Campaign Legal Center. Coming up next on the Bloomberg
28:21
Speaker 2: Launch Show... Another judge receives death threats after being called
28:26
Speaker 2: a maniac by Trump. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening
28:29
Speaker 2: to Bloomberg. Federal judges are used to handling complex legal issues,
28:35
Speaker 2: but at least nine judges in D.C. have been tasked
28:39
Speaker 2: with deciding cases challenging construction projects President Trump initiated to
28:45
Speaker 2: remake the nation's capitals. Being forced to decide on things
28:49
Speaker 2: like how many trees can be cut down or whether
28:52
Speaker 2: paint tests can proceed as the administration tries to proceed
28:56
Speaker 2: at breakneck speed. And then some of the judges are
28:59
Speaker 2: subjected to being called names by President Trump. Joining me
29:04
Speaker 2: is Paul Kiesel, trial attorney and founder of Speak Up
29:07
Speaker 2: for Justice. Paul, the judge handling the golf course case,
29:12
Speaker 2: was called a crazed lunatic by President Trump. He's called
29:17
Speaker 2: federal judges so many names, including Supreme Court justices. Do
29:22
Speaker 2: people even pay attention to this name calling anymore?
29:25
Speaker 1: The purpose of Speak Up for Justice is precisely that
29:29
Speaker 1: Judge Reyes doesn't have the ability to get on a
29:32
Speaker 1: stand and say, what the hell are you doing by
29:35
Speaker 1: denigrating me, the judge, and the court system? And so
29:39
Speaker 1: it's important that the community, that lawyers, that citizens, the
29:45
Speaker 1: media speak out about the kind of lettering that's dangerous
29:50
Speaker 1: in the world that we live in today. So those
29:52
Speaker 1: sorts of words that we become accustomed to hearing, are
29:56
Speaker 1: dangerous to judges, they're dangerous to officials, they're dangerous to citizens.
30:01
Speaker 1: And so it's important that we don't just accept it
30:04
Speaker 1: as a matter of course, that we speak up about
30:08
Speaker 1: these challenges.
30:10
Speaker 2: Recap for us what this court hearing was about.
30:14
Speaker 1: There's a hearing back in May where there's a question
30:18
Speaker 1: of what changes are going to happen at this golf course,
30:21
Speaker 1: what's going to happen. And the judges look at, if
30:24
Speaker 1: you're going to cut down more than 10 trees, more
30:27
Speaker 1: than 10 trees. You need to come back to the
30:29
Speaker 1: court and let me know what your plans are so
30:32
Speaker 1: that we can protect the property and the interests of
30:36
Speaker 1: those litigating the case in front of us. More than
30:39
Speaker 1: 10 trees. What the judge does not do is she
30:41
Speaker 1: doesn't do an injunction. She doesn't affirmatively compel them not
30:46
Speaker 1: to do it, but they say, judge, we will respect
30:48
Speaker 1: the court's wishes. And if there's more than 10 trees,
30:52
Speaker 1: we'll let the court know. Now it's 4.55 in the
30:57
Speaker 1: afternoon on a holiday weekend, October the 9th, and they
31:02
Speaker 1: file a brief that says, oh, by the way, this weekend,
31:05
Speaker 1: we're going to cut down over 500 trees, by the way.
31:10
Speaker 1: That's filed at 4.55 in the afternoon. Let's assume at
31:13
Speaker 1: that hour, the court's gone. Their electronic filing system works,
31:17
Speaker 1: but there's no one that actually accepts that brief necessarily.
31:21
Speaker 1: And now it's a clear violation. of the commitment that
31:25
Speaker 1: the government made to the judge. The judge didn't issue
31:28
Speaker 1: an injunction because the judge trusted that the lawyers in
31:31
Speaker 1: front of her would act as officers of the court
31:35
Speaker 1: and comply. So that weekend, over 400 trees were leveled,
31:42
Speaker 1: far in excess of what the court had said would
31:45
Speaker 1: be permissible. And by the time the plaintiffs get before
31:49
Speaker 1: the judge and the judge now needs an explanation of
31:53
Speaker 1: why her Words were ignored and why the notice that
31:58
Speaker 1: they gave to the court was done at nearly five
32:00
Speaker 1: o'clock on a holiday weekend. You can imagine the frustration
32:04
Speaker 1: the judge would have at that clear violation of the
32:08
Speaker 1: court's spirit of the order that she gave and the
32:12
Speaker 1: consideration she gave to the government not to issue an injunction,
32:16
Speaker 1: but hope that they would comply with what her asked for.
32:18
Speaker 1: That's sort of what creates the anger, the frustrations. the
32:22
Speaker 1: violation of the court's order.
32:25
Speaker 2: There were several instances where the judge and Stanley Woodward,
32:29
Speaker 2: who's the third ranking official at the Justice Department, sort
32:33
Speaker 2: of butted heads, I guess you could say. And one
32:36
Speaker 2: of the things is that while the administration was saying
32:40
Speaker 2: in the courtroom that there were no permanent plans to
32:45
Speaker 2: go ahead with the golf course, President Trump on social
32:48
Speaker 2: media was saying, we're going to go ahead immediately. And
32:51
Speaker 2: she said, do I believe the president of the United
32:54
Speaker 2: States or do I believe you? This is not the
32:57
Speaker 2: first time this has happened in a courtroom where the
33:00
Speaker 2: lawyers are saying one thing and then Trump is saying
33:03
Speaker 2: something else. So what's the court to do?
33:06
Speaker 1: What the court hopes it does is issue either orders
33:11
Speaker 1: or requests that the parties as officers of the court
33:13
Speaker 1: will abide by and agree to. And what was clear
33:17
Speaker 1: was the president of the United States was intent on
33:20
Speaker 1: violating the court's order, which is let me know if
33:23
Speaker 1: you're going to cut down more than 10 trees. They'd
33:26
Speaker 1: already done that. And then when the court says, look,
33:29
Speaker 1: what are you going to be doing? Because on truth social,
33:32
Speaker 1: the president says specifically one thing and then inconsistent with
33:37
Speaker 1: what the government lawyers are saying in front of the judge.
33:40
Speaker 1: Who is she going to believe? The president of the
33:42
Speaker 1: United States, who's issued a public statement about what his
33:44
Speaker 1: plans are, Or the lawyers who are there, you're going
33:48
Speaker 1: to go with the president of the United States, the
33:49
Speaker 1: highest official in this country. That's what you're going to do.
33:52
Speaker 2: In this case, they didn't specifically violate a court order.
33:58
Speaker 2: It was sort of around the edges, would you say?
34:00
Speaker 1: I'm going to say this. Yes, you're correct. But as
34:04
Speaker 1: officers of the court, you have a duty to the
34:08
Speaker 1: justice system. You have a duty to the Constitution. So
34:11
Speaker 1: when you tell the judge, Your Honor, we will give
34:13
Speaker 1: you notice. before we're going to cut down more than
34:16
Speaker 1: 10 trees, which is why she doesn't issue an injunction
34:19
Speaker 1: at that moment in time. The spirit of that conversation
34:22
Speaker 1: is we're actually going to give you reasonable notice before
34:25
Speaker 1: we do something. So it's such an insult to the
34:28
Speaker 1: judicial system that they would give notice in the way
34:31
Speaker 1: that they did that is just clearly intended to anger
34:36
Speaker 1: the court because it flaunts the very essence of the
34:39
Speaker 1: reason why we have a court in the first place.
34:41
Speaker 1: That's the danger of what occurred here.
34:43
Speaker 2: Have there been instances where the Trump administration has flagrantly
34:48
Speaker 2: violated a court order?
34:50
Speaker 1: Sure. I would say probably the most flagrant violation was
34:53
Speaker 1: the issue involving the Salvadoran, where the court said, do
34:57
Speaker 1: not remove him from this country, maintain him in this country.
35:01
Speaker 1: That's the order. And they say, I'm sorry, the planes
35:04
Speaker 1: are already in the air. And the order is then
35:05
Speaker 1: turn the planes around. Oh, well, we don't have the ability.
35:08
Speaker 1: That is a clear violation of a court order.
35:11
Speaker 2: I mean, has there been an administration before where, you know,
35:14
Speaker 2: judges couldn't trust what the administration is saying anymore?
35:19
Speaker 1: I certainly think during the times of the Nixon administration,
35:21
Speaker 1: there were probably statements made by the White House, which
35:24
Speaker 1: people couldn't trust and ultimately called into question what the
35:27
Speaker 1: authority was of the United States government. But I think
35:30
Speaker 1: the essence of our democracy is we respect the rulings
35:33
Speaker 1: of our judicial officers. And what we do is if
35:36
Speaker 1: we disagree, we appeal. And that Isn't what's happening here.
35:39
Speaker 1: We're going to try to remove the judge. So they
35:42
Speaker 1: suggest you need to recuse yourself because you can't be fair.
35:45
Speaker 1: Not sure why, but they say you got to recuse yourself. Again,
35:48
Speaker 1: the proper methodology is an appeal and not referring to
35:52
Speaker 1: a judge as deranged lunatic who might be insane. And
35:57
Speaker 1: those words are exactly what Chief Justice Roberts addressed two
36:01
Speaker 1: years ago about those sorts of incendiary remarks that could
36:05
Speaker 1: lead to assassination and, in fact, have led to violence
36:09
Speaker 1: affected against our judicial officers. We've done programs for Speak
36:12
Speaker 1: Up for Justice that have given examples of how judges
36:16
Speaker 1: have been threatened either through doxing or swatting or violent
36:21
Speaker 1: videos sent to them. It's a culture. that we're allowing
36:26
Speaker 1: to exist, that Speak Up for Justice is really designed
36:29
Speaker 1: to protect against. I'm honored to say the other day,
36:31
Speaker 1: on October 18th, the International Judges Association in Lisbon, Portugal,
36:36
Speaker 1: awarded us, our organization, with the Independence of the Judiciary
36:40
Speaker 1: Award because we believe an independent judiciary is a component
36:45
Speaker 1: of a thriving democracy.
36:47
Speaker 2: Judge Reyes said that she's been getting emails and voicemails
36:51
Speaker 2: threatening death threats. I really don't think that that's what
36:54
Speaker 2: the founders envisioned. And as you mentioned, other federal judges
36:58
Speaker 2: have been getting death threats. And most of these hearings
37:02
Speaker 2: are not about earth-shaking matters, but they're on immigration or
37:07
Speaker 2: something that the administration is committed to.
37:10
Speaker 1: That's a perfect example, right? This is about a golf course,
37:13
Speaker 1: a public golf course set up by Congress a century
37:16
Speaker 1: ago that the administration decides they want to do something with.
37:21
Speaker 1: It's just a golf course. This is not life or death.
37:23
Speaker 1: It's not nuclear weapons. It's a golf course. And yet
37:25
Speaker 1: the words that we're using are so inflammatory that they're
37:29
Speaker 1: posing a serious personal risk to the judge hearing this
37:33
Speaker 1: relatively benign case in this country.
37:36
Speaker 2: What should the judges be doing in the courtroom? Should
37:39
Speaker 2: they be holding, you know, administration members in contempt? What
37:44
Speaker 2: can the judges do?
37:46
Speaker 1: Well, I think that there's a new rule, a federal definition,
37:49
Speaker 1: Rule 118 that allows judges when they're criticized, when improperly attacked,
37:57
Speaker 1: they do have a right under Rule 118 now, a
38:00
Speaker 1: disciplinary rule, to comment, not about the substance of the case,
38:03
Speaker 1: but about the remarks or the threats to the court itself.
38:06
Speaker 1: So Rule 118 is sort of a response by the
38:09
Speaker 1: Federal Judges Association. to provide an opportunity for judges to
38:13
Speaker 1: actually speak out when they need to. But judges are
38:16
Speaker 1: not comfortable doing that. They're comfortable in their robes. They're
38:18
Speaker 1: comfortable in their chambers. And again, that's the reason why
38:21
Speaker 1: we have this bipartisan organization, which is designed to protect
38:26
Speaker 1: the democracy by providing support for the courts.
38:30
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining me. That's Paul Kiesel, founder of Speak
38:33
Speaker 2: Up for Justice. And that's it for this edition of
38:36
Speaker 2: the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember, you can always get the
38:39
Speaker 2: latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can
38:42
Speaker 2: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www.bloomberg.com slash
38:48
Speaker 2: podcast slash law. And remember to tune into the Bloomberg
38:52
Speaker 2: Law Show every weeknight at 10 p.m. Wall Street time.
38:56
Speaker 2: I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.