Crom Carmichael on HR1 and New Hampshire State Voting Laws That Work

Crom Carmichael on HR1 and New Hampshire State Voting Laws That Work

 

Live from Music Row Monday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed the original all-star panelist Crom Carmichael to the studio who referenced an article in The Wall Street Journal outlining voting laws in the state of New Hampshire and cited its efficiencies in response to HR1 proposed legislation.

Leahy: Crom, I see you’ve got your Wall Street Journal print out there.

Carmichael: I do. Kimberly Strassel.

Leahy: She’s great by the way.

Carmichael: She is fabulous. She wrote an article and it’s about HR1 and about a Democrat who is fighting HR1 with everything he has.

Leahy: Who is that?

Carmichael: And that is a Democrat named Bill Gardner, who is New Hampshire Secretary of State. He has been overseeing the Granite State’s voting since December second, 1976.

Leahy: He’s been Secretary of State since 1976?

Carmichael: Yes.

Leahy: That is 44 years.

Carmichael: Which is a week before Stacey Abram’s 33rd birthday. And they meet and he was called to testify and he was called by the Republicans. He was a Democrat, was called by the Republicans to testify about voting procedures and what they mean. He is vehemently opposed to HR1. And he has evidence to support his position of the HR1 is a crock if the goal is voter turnout.

Because in New Hampshire, here’s what he says. And this is really, really insightful. He says, just because you make voting easier does not raise the turnout automatically and it can actually have the opposite effect. The trust and confidence voters have in the process is key to New Hampshire’s evidence that their voter turnout is consistently among the highest in the nation.

But here are their rules. Mr. Gartner goes on and explains that some of these rules are in the New Hampshire State Constitution. The document requires that residents show up to vote in person unless they are physically disabled or out of town.

Leahy: See, I like that.

Carmichael: That is the only exception. You have to show up in person. That means there’s no mail-in voting.

Leahy: Mail-in voting is fraught with opportunities for fraud. Period.

Carmichael: No one has ever questioned the results of New Hampshire’s votes. They also have much higher voter turnout than Oregon, which has mail-out voting and the U.S. in general. And that is very consistent over every presidential election cycle. The New Hampshire Constitution requires that the final vote tally for each candidate be publicly declared at each polling place the night of the election after the polls closed.

Leahy: That’s great. I love that.

Carmichael: This is one reason New Hampshire doesn’t have early voting, which can cause the counting to stretch out. So let’s get this right. New Hampshire does not have early voting. New Hampshire does not have mail-in ballots, and they have higher voter turnout than Oregon, and they have much higher voter turnout than the U.S. in general.

And they have what Stacey Abrams would call racist policies. But Stacey Abrams has no answer to their voter turnout so she deflects and changes the subject. And this is really important that the Republicans say, look, the evidence shows that the most important thing to get higher voter turnout is that people trust the result.

Leahy: You had said something very important. Trust. And this is what evaporated in Georgia in the Special Center Election. That’s why the turnout was low.

Carmichael: I don’t know whether the turnout was low and, okay, good. But look at Russia. Putin wins going away. Does anybody in their right mind trust the elections in Russia? Do we know what the voter turn out actually was? And so this is what’s going to be very interesting. In Maricopa County in Arizona.

Leahy: Phoenix.

Carmichael: The Republican Senate there has now gotten the authority to go back and do an audit.

Leahy: They’re doing it now. Doing it right now as we speak, I don’t know what the results will be. I’m not sure what they want to accomplish, but it’s going on right now.

Listen to the full second hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Rep. Timothy Rudd Discusses His New Resolution Addressing Election Integrity and Judicial Overreach

State Rep. Timothy Rudd Discusses His New Resolution Addressing Election Integrity and Judicial Overreach

 

Live from Music Row Friday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed Tennessee State Rep. (R) Timothy Rudd to the newsmakers line to discuss his current resolution calling for the removal of those judicial authorities that perform unconstitutional overreach and jeopardize election integrity.

Leahy: On the newsmaker line state representative Timothy Rudd from Rutherford County. A very interesting resolution proposed by Representative Rudd. I’ll just read it. Article 6 section 6 of the Tennessee Constitution. “Judges and attorneys for the state may be removed from office by a concurrent vote of both Houses of the General Assembly. Each House voting separately, but two-thirds of the members to which each house may be entitled must concur in such vote.” Welcome to The Tennessee Star Report Representative Rudd.

Rudd: Good morning. Excuse me. I’m a little hoarse this morning. So hopefully I can work my way through it.

Leahy: Well, I think you’re doing fine. You’re doing fine. We get the message here. It’s a very interesting story that we published at The Tennessee Star yesterday. Headline. Tennessee Republican Lawmakers Seek to Remove Davidson County Chancellor for Alleged Judicial Overreach During 2020 Election. Tell us about this resolution and how you came about putting it together representative Rudd.

Rudd: Well, I’m chairman of the elections and campaign subcommittee of the House. We oversee election law. I’m very sensitive to anything that in any way can hamper our elections or interfere with them illegally. So we watch over that very carefully. Last year, as you know, all across the country judges were intervening and forcing states to participate in mass mail-in balloting and doing other things that really were outside their purview.

And Chancellor Lyle did a similar thing here. She tried to make available mass absentee balloting and that was not within her purview to do. What she didn’t do is she could have overturned the state law which she could have done if she viewed it as unconstitutional. But what she chose to do is simply suspend the law and Implement her own opinions.

She even changed state forms and threatened state employees with incarceration if they didn’t go against the general assembly and adapt her forms. That was then appealed for the November elections to the Supreme Court of Tennessee. They overturned her decision. And she then went back after it came back from Supreme Court and proceeded to change forms again and continued to threaten state employees who tried to interfere somewhat in the process.

We just felt like as we were witnessing judicial overreach across the country that we weren’t going to allow that here in Tennessee. So to my knowledge we have become the first I’m sure the first of many states to take action against any judge which we’re very hesitant to do. But it needed to be done in this case that interferes in our elections without legislative approval.

Leahy: Well, this is very interesting and quite fundamental actually when you look at the problems of the 2020 presidential elections. You saw in the five key battleground states where judges and appointed but not elected officials to change the laws that were the purview of the state legislatures unlawfully. And that in ways that help the Democrat candidate win. It looks like you’re saying here that’s exactly what Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle did in essence legislating from the bench and usurping the legitimate authority of the Tennessee General Assembly.

Rudd: She most certainly did. I remember Supreme Court Justice Alito. I don’t have the exact quote in front of me. But he and one of his rulings he said that it is the which the U.S. Constitution also says it is the exclusive purview of state legislatures to hold elections, set elections, and election laws and forms. And she violated that pure and simple.

With the Secretary of State, we passed the year before last we passed voter registration reform here in Tennessee because we saw a lot of out of state groups coming in and paying people to register people to vote and getting mass ballots and a lot of fraud and a lot of mistakes were made. So we wanted to implement some new procedures that would hold people accountable and train them so they could do it properly.

There was a lawsuit in Memphis. And the Memphis judge said that she deemed that parts of our law were unconstitutional and threw it out. I disagreed with that decision, but she did the proper conduct of a judge. She deemed it unconstitutional. Threw it out and sent it back to the legislature. And then we altered it again and sent it back to her and she had no objections to it.

That is the proper way that a judge should act. not just basically suspend state law and write your own opinions and force them on the public. The Constitution both state and federal says that is the exclusive purview of the state legislature. And she stepped over that line. If the state legislature did not hold her accountable we wouldn’t be doing our job.

Leahy: You know, I’m looking at your resolution here. And I think you have totally got the goods. Let me just point the items out in your resolution. number one. Iand around June of 2020 Chancellor Lyle attempted to expand the voting absentee by mail criteria without overturning Tennessee Code Annotated Section 2 6 2001 and without legislative authority.

That is judicial overreach. Number 2 in and around June of 2020, Chancellor Lyle change state election forms to include access to absentee ballot voting by mail that had not been approved by this legislative body, the general assembly, and was contrary to the statutory provisions duly enacted by this legislative body.

And number three in and around June of 2020 Lyle usurped the authority of the state election authorities and the Tennessee General Assembly by replacing statutory language on state election forms with her own language. This looks like it is a textbook case of judicial usurpation and overreach to me a Representative Rodd.

Rudd: It is Michael Patrick. We’re actually would very very rarely ever try to go after a district attorney or a judge for a similar action, but this was interference in our election process. Sometimes it’s been criminal activity or other activity, but we really had no choice. We can’t allow this to stand and if we allow a judge to get away with this, they’ll start doing it on other legislative matters outside of this.

The Tennessee Bar and some of the liberal judges are trying to confuse people they’re trying to argue this but it’s a criminal court matter. And we don’t meet certain measures there can trying to confuse the public and even other lawyers around the state by trying to change the narrative of what this is doing.

And what this resolution does is it calls for the establishment of a joint Senate and House Ad Hoc Committee to investigate these charges and what she did to see if it merits impeachment. And if it did that came out of that committee, then at that point, it would go to a joint House and Senate meeting and by a two-thirds vote of each House, they would vote to oust her. So this resolution in itself is not to remove her but it calls for the process to begin the investigation on whether she should be removed.

Leahy: It’s entirely constitutional and is very much needed. One of the things I’ve looked at Tim here is the fact that the state legislatures in Georgia and Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Pennsylvania, actually, although controlled by Republicans did not properly assert their authorities to have election law followed in those states. I salute you for having the insight and courage to put such a resolution in front of the Tennessee House of Representatives.

Rudd: Well, we got 67 members of our 73 Republican members. Of course, some are in the hospital and some have conflicts. Maybe they’re presenting cases in our court or something. Others are a chair of a committee and want to stay neutral. But almost all of our caucus is supporting this including virtually every leader we have in our caucus.

They know it’s something that needs to be done. Tennessee has a history in recent years under Republican control of trying to be proactive and to head off things that are happening in other states. Whether it be this or protecting people from frivolous lawsuits or other things that we do. Just like Scott Cepicky is currently carrying the sports gender bill to protect women’s rights in sports.

We try to be proactive before it becomes an issue here. And that’s why we’re doing this now. Senator Nicely is carrying it the Senate but the House is going to move it first then that originated in the house and we have a much longer process. The Senate will not run their’s so we have got it out of committee.

Leahy: State Representative Timothy Rudd. Please come back and give us an update on this. Thanks so much for joining us today here on The Tennessee Star Report.

Rudd: Thank you. I’m glad you had me maybe next time on my voice will be normal.

Leahy: Thanks so much for being with us.

Listen to the second hour:


– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Former Member of the Federal Election Commission Hans von Spakovsky Discusses Election Integrity and the Need for Reforms

Former Member of the Federal Election Commission Hans von Spakovsky Discusses Election Integrity and the Need for Reforms

 

Live from Music Row Tuesday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed Manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Fellow at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation Hans von Spakovsky to the show.

During the second hour, Spakovsky discussed his many years of experience in election oversight and the need for transparency in voting advocating the importance of in-person voting on Election Day. He also added that it was important to go forward with paper ballots that have an identifiable chain of custody and continued his warning about machine voting and the elimination of private funding.

Leahy: We are joined now by Hans von Spakovsky. He is the manager of the election law reform initiative and a senior legal fellow at The Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation. A native of Huntsville. A graduate of Vanderbilt law school. And the author of Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holders Justice Department published by HarperCollins-Broadside Books in June 2014. Welcome to The Tennessee Star Report Mr. Von Spakovsky.

Spakovsky: Michael, thanks for having me on.

Leahy: Always great. By the way, I think we have a mutual friend in 2012 I had a book published by HarperCollins Broadside book call The Covenant of Liberty: The Ideological Origins of the Tea Party Movement. And the editor there was…Adam Bellow, I bet you know, Adam.

Spakovsky: Yes. The same editor I had. That’s exactly right.

Leahy: The greatest editor I’ve ever had. He’s just fabulous and really a great guy.

Spakovsky: He certainly was a pleasant surprise given some of the people you have to deal with in these publishing houses.

Leahy: He’s now with the Bombardier imprint of Post Hill press which as it turns out is based right here in Nashville, Tennessee. How about that?

Spakovsky: Well, I didn’t realize that.

Leahy: Yeah, he’s doing great work and has a lot of really good books coming out of that imprint. So, election integrity. I’m not going to go back and relitigate you know, all the five or six the problems with the unlawful nature of the election in these five or six states on November 3. But I do want to look forward. And I’d like to have you react to my view on this see if you think I’m going down the right track.

It seems to me that the potential for fraud is huge when you use a huge number of absentee ballots. We have these signature verification problems that and then you also have the drop boxes. This seems to be all sorts of chain of custody problems. All sorts of ballot harvesting problems. And it seems to me if we’re going to have any confidence in the electoral process in America state legislators around the country are going to have to fix the laws and make sure that unelected bureaucrats don’t change the rules. That’s my view. Am I on the right track or am I missing anything?

Spakovsky: Oh no, you’re absolutely right about that. Look people need to understand that absentee ballots are the only kind of ballots that are voted outside the supervision of election officials. Outside the observation of poll observers and poll watchers. And they’re the only kind of ballots that are then handled instead of being placed right into a ballot box in a polling place.

Then they go through some kind of process where they are handled by third parties before being delivered. All of that makes them extremely vulnerable not only to intentional fraud but to other problems like, you know getting lost in the mail on the way back and all kinds of other issues. And that’s why I agree.

You know we need to have absentee ballots for those who like our overseas military personnel and people who are too sick or disabled to make it to the polling place on Election Day. We should not be moving in the direction of encouraging everybody to use an absentee ballot if in fact, they have the ability to go to a polling place on Election Day and vote.

Leahy: Yeah, that seems to me to be the critical problem here in terms of integrity. You can’t be confident in the integrity of absentee ballots. Not only those by mail but particularly those placed in the drop boxes.

Spakovsky: That’s a big problem.

Leahy: I don’t know if you saw our reporting at The Georgia Star News one of our six outlets. You know, we own The Tennessee Star and several other state-based conservative news sites. But as you may know in Georgia in the November 3 presidential election there were about 1.3 million absentee ballots. The Secretary of State there didn’t know how many were delivered by mail or how many by drop boxes. But you probably know John McLaughlin the pollster, right?

Spakovsky: Oh, yeah.

Leahy: John did a poll and the polling results looked like about 600,000 of those 1.3 million absentee ballots were deposit and drop boxes. So we at The Georgia Star News asked the Secretary of State, hey, do you know how many of these absentee ballots were delivered by mail and how many by drop boxes? And the answer was, and you probably know this already…no, we don’t know. You have to ask the 159 counties.

Spakovsky: Right.

Leahy: We went and asked the 159 counties. We’ve only got an account for like 150,000 of those 600,000 drop boxes still like two and a half months later. And of those, if you look at the ballot transfer forms that we got, you know, 80 percent of them were not delivered within one hour, which is what the rule said. You know there are all sorts of concerns there it seems to me. Will the state legislators that are back in session now, will they act in your view to appropriately constrain and control the proliferation of drop boxes and absentee ballots?

Spakovsky: Well, they’d better because if they don’t the public confidence and the integrity of the election process was extremely important and which was totally shaken by this past election is just going to get worse. And it’s going to affect elections for years. I think what I’ve seen is that a lot of state legislators are finally, finally aware of these problems.

And the public is finally aware of these problems. and I just saw that for example the governor of, Georgia is urging the state legislators to make a change which is the change that I’ve recommended for years, which is to remember Georgia like Tennessee has a voter ID law. Georgia passed its voter ID law and it was first effective in 2008. It’s a great law, but it’s got one big failing. It only applies to in-person voting. It doesn’t apply to absentee ballots too.

And that is a change that needs to be made in the law.  If you look at Alabama, right?  If you stay to yourself. We didn’t hear a lot of claims about problems in Alabama as opposed to Georgia. Well, the difference is Alabama actually passed a great voter ID law some years ago. But it applies to both in-person and absentee balloting. And while that can’t stop all problems are all fraud it certainly can minimize it when you have that kind of a legal requirement.

Leahy: Let me ask you this question and you’ve been at this for some time. Why is it that the Democrats are just so intensely focused on this? They spend so many resources and appear with a guy like Mark Elias and all those folks that they just have huge legal resources to advance absentee ballots and all these things that are I think in my view fraud-prone. Why on the Republican conservative side have we paid so little attention to it?

Spakovsky: You know how I hate to say this but my experience with this is that they think the end justifies the means. And they believe that they want to make it frankly easier to cheat and easier to manipulate election results. And that sounds harsh but I will tell you that I wrote a case study some years ago about this big voter fraud case that occurred in Alabama in the mid-1990s. And the fraud had clearly occurred.

It was in an overwhelmingly Black or Democratic county down in Alabama. And do you know that the NAACP and other civil rights groups did everything they could to prevent and stop the FBI from investigating this voter fraud? Which by the way has been reported to them by young African-American Democratic candidates.

But they did everything they could to try to stop the investigation. And you know in the end, almost a dozen individuals and local officials were convicted of fraud, and that fraud included stealing the votes of Black voters. But these civil rights groups did not want this investigation going forward. And that was so shocking to me. But that is unfortunately an attitude I see all the time.

(Commercial break)

Leahy: By the way, I have to say this. Are you an Alabama football fan?

Spakovsky: Well, I have to admit I was. As you know the whole state would come to a stop every year with Auburn and Alabama played each other. And I could still remember watching those pictures of the kids.

Leahy: Well, congratulations to you and all Alabamians because last night perhaps one of the best college football teams ever, the Alabama Crimson Tide stomped the Ohio State Buckeyes 52 to 24 to win the national championship. I bet you it’s a good day in the von Spakovsky household right?

Spakovsky: Well, it is. And I have a good friend in Ohio and I’m going to have to call and give a hard time to. (Laughter)

Leahy: So hey, I want to ask you this question. I noticed that you’re not just shall we say an academic. I’m looking at your background you have served on the board of advisors of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and on the Fulton County Georgia Board of Registrations and Elections in Fulton County which was the center of where all this was going on in Georgia. You’ve seen how these things work. Let me bring this question up to you. I’ve watched with great interest how Fulton County and many other counties in these Metro areas in swing states.

I don’t know surreptitiously or quietly accepted huge amounts of money from The Mark Zuckerberg funded Center for Technology and Civic Life which basically specified how they should run the elections down there and specified how many drop boxes they should have and centralized the counting systems and the tabulation areas in ways that made it difficult to observe. You and I haven’t talked about this, but when you look at what the Zuckerberg Center for Technology and Civic Life did, is this the kind of thing that we should be allowed going forward in American elections?

Spakovsky: The first thing the Georgia legislature should pass, the first bill is a bill barring any election officials or county or state governments from receiving private funding. Because if you look at the way this money was structured, you know it all so it all sounds like oh it’s well-intentioned. But this was simply a way of taking get-out-the-vote money that would normally have gone to a political campaign and using it to manipulate public election officials.

Because where did all this money go? It only went to democratically held urban areas and places where the votes would help Joe Biden and Democratic candidates. And the changes they made, for example, I can’t think of anything as you know, you mentioned drop boxes. I can’t think of anything more dangerous than putting unsecured and un-surveilled and unmonitored drop boxes for people to put their absentee ballots in. That is dangerous.

It is a way of making it easier to manipulate elections and for example, deposit fraudulent ballots in huge numbers when there’s no one there to see what’s happening. It’s like I said, this is something that every state needs their state legislators need to immediately change. It’s just such a conflict of interest. Election officials are taking that money.

Leahy: Do you in your capacity as the head of the Election Law Reform Institute of The Heritage Foundation, do you ever go and testify before state legislatures on these matters?

Spakovsky: I most certainly do. I’ve done it on numerous occasions. And I’ve been working on this. Look, one of the differences between me and other folks is as you’ve mentioned is there a lot of academics out there making all kinds of recommendations. None of whom have any actual experience administering elections. I spent five years in Georgia as a county election administrator in the biggest county in the state. And I did that for three years in Virginia.

Leahy: You were the Richard Baron of Fulton County before he was?

Spakovsky: No I was on the county election board, which was a five-member board that ran elections in Fulton County.

Leahy: So you supervised the guy who ran it.

Spakovsky: That’s exactly right.

Leahy: Wow!

Spakovsky: I for example was astonished when I heard the news of how they stopped counting ballots at the end of election day. We would never have done that. We had backup teams of people and we would count all of the ballots and we made sure when I was there which was 20 years ago that we had observers there from the parties and the candidates and we put them close enough so they could see what we were doing because we wanted that transparency.

Because we wanted them to be able to see that we were obeying the law and not doing anything wrong. And when you have election officials keeping observers out that, of course, leads to suspicions and they should lead suspicions because again transparency is the key to have a secure election that people can have confidence in.

Leahy: Have you been invited to testify before the Georgia state legislature? They opened the session yesterday. Have you been invited to go down and testify there?

Spakovsky: No, they have not brought me down. By the way, I should tell you that all the talk about electronic voting machines, I was in Georgia when they were trying to decide what kind of equipment to go to this is back after the 2000 election when people using punch-card equipment. And I testified against having the state go to electronic voting machines.

Leahy: And we have about 30 seconds left. In synopsis, what’s the argument against electronic voting machines?

Spakovsky: Well, the problem with them is that with most of them there is no audit trail. I think the best way is to have Opti-scan equipment where you have a paper ballot. Yes, it’s scanned by a computer to count but you have the paper ballot that you can then hand account to ensure that you’re not being somehow hit by software.

Leahy: You said the magic word. Hand count, paper ballots. That’s the way to make sure there is some integrity there. Hans von Spakovsky the Manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation. Thanks for joining us and come back again, please.

Spakovsky: Sure. Anytime.

Listen to the full second hour here:


– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.
Photo “Hans von Spakovsky” by Hans von Spakovsky. CC BY-SA 2.0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Host Michael Patrick Leahy Discusses Election Integrity and America’s Path Forward with Caller Jasper

Host Michael Patrick Leahy Discusses Election Integrity and America’s Path Forward with Caller Jasper

 

Live from Music Row Monday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed calls from listeners to discuss how 2021 has started off worse than 2020 and America’s path forward to free and fair elections.

(Devin Nunes clip plays)

This is clearly a violation of antitrust, civil rights, the RICO statute. There should be a racketeering investigation on all the people that coordinated this attack on not only a company but on all of those like us. I have 3 million followers on Parler. Tonight I will no longer be able to communicate with those people.

Leahy: That’s a representative Devin Nunes. I didn’t know he had three million followers on Parler. Wow. Well, Google wants to get rid of Parler and because you know, you can’t say anything that the left doesn’t approve of these days. According to Google and Apple and you know these Silicon Valley Tech oligarchs are just awful. Facebook, Twitter, and that whole crowd. And by the way, you know, Twitter banned President Trump permanently.

We will have something to say about that and what The Tennessee Star is going to say about that action. We’re going to take about that. We’re going to have something to say about that later today on our website. The question today is do you agree with me that 2021 is so far been worse than 2020. It’s hard to imagine. (Gives call-in number)

Jasper in Ohio wants to weigh in on that question. Good morning, Jasper. You’re on the Tennessee Star Report.

Caller Jasper: Good morning, Michael. And I want to say that absolutely I agree with you a 1000 percent that ’21 is worse than ’20 for the very reason that you outlined earlier. The 75 million people and Trump supporters have lost their ability to have any political effect because the voting system is now rig completely and set in place. There has been nothing to get to the bottom of the Dominion Voting Systems software fiasco. And it is in place. And so while plenty of people want to make amendments and straighten this out there’s no mechanism anymore to guarantee that your vote will ever be counted.

Leahy: Well Jasper, I agree with your assessment right now, but I’m actually going to say I believe there is a mechanism. And I’ll be talking more about this in the future. But where we go as a country – do you have a minute to let me outline this? It’s a broader discussion. I want to give you sort of my view of where we are as a country. Then I’ll tell you what the actions are. If you can listen for a few minutes.

Jasper: Oh, absolutely. I’m interested in this.

Leahy: Okay. So here’s the thing. The constitutional conservative movement in America, really the modern constitutional conservative movement began in 2009 with the Tea Party Movement. And I was involved in the starting of that. And that movement had many leaders around the country and we were united by the ideas and principles of a constitutionally limited government, free markets, and fiscal responsibility. That movement has morphed into the MAGA movement.

The Make America Great Again movement and had one leader: Donald Trump. And it added to it elements of American sovereignty, if you will. But we’ve seen – and I’ve been a big supporter of President Trump – but if you have one leader in any system that has only one critical link, if there are problems with that critical link, the entire system has a problem. And President Trump has had a tendency to, you know, occasionally say things that are problematic.

The things that he said at the Capitol rally have basically been distorted by the left to try to make it appear that he has incited the riot. He didn’t, but they are effectively using their tools to say that he did. But also related to that is, you know, when Trump supporters were among those who breached the Capitol however you see we lost the moral high ground there.

And my theory is actually that the people that breached the Capitol that were Trump supporters we’re not really part of the original Tea Party Movement because no one who had been in the Tea Party Movement and who loves the Constitution would have broken the law in that way. So the question is, where we go from here? And there is a way to go at least in – shall we say, the 35 states of the 50 states – where freedom is still possible. And you know the names.

It’s not New England and it’s not the West Coast. But the rest of the United States is still possible. And you talk about election integrity. I agree with you entirely. People have to be confident that their votes will be counted honestly. And the way to do that in my view is to get rid of drop boxes which are filled with fraud I think and have problems with the chain of custody. And get rid of absentee ballots also are fraud opportunities.

The people that do that are out of the state legislatures. and in Ohio, you should do that and get back to actual paper ballots so you can actually audit these election results. This should happen in every state legislature. Georgia should do that where they’ve been usurped or the election processes for the 2020 election were unlawful.

Change it. Reassert your authority in Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. That to me, Jasper, is the answer and a beginning of a real reinvigorated assertion of traditional federalism. The founders’ federalism where states take back the power that has been usurped by the national federal government. That’s my view of the future, Jasper. I’d be curious to see what your thoughts are on that.

Jasper: Michael, I can’t disagree with any of that except all of it comes down to the single mechanism to implement any kind of correction. It comes down to one thing: vote. And in at least 27 states Dominion software is the mechanism. And so 27 states are automatically disenfranchised.

Leahy: Well, let me just stop for a moment. Actually, I am not sure if that’s quite the correct number. You make a distinction, too, in terms of Dominion software because in some states like Georgia the entire state uses it. In other states only certain counties use it. But we can get back to the Dominion software. But State legislatures can address that by the way – and they should, I think. So on that note, Jasper. One last question: in Ohio, do you like or not like Governor Mike DeWine?

Jasper: I don’t like him. He’s a Democrat.

Leahy: Who do you think should be the governor up there? Who would you suggest?

Jasper: Jim Renacci would be an excellent choice.

Listen to the full first hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio