♪ > > This week in the Wheelhouse voter security, more voter suppression > > inside the Save America at.

♪ > > And > > for Connecticut Public.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

This is the Wheelhouse.

The show that connects politics to the people.

We've got your weekly dose of politics in Connecticut and beyond right here.

Federal public INS are working to enact stricter ID requirements ahead of midterm elections in November.

> > The Save America Act has already passed the U.S.

House today and the Wheelhouse.

We look at the proposal and the ramifications of may have for American democracy.

Us congresswoman from Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro will share her thoughts on that as well.

It's going to want to stay tuned for that.

But first.

President Donald Trump delivered his State of the Union address last night.

There was also alternative programming as some Democrats skipped the Trump speech in favor of throwing their own event on the National Mall.

Here to talk with us about what went down on Capitol Hill last night are 2 professors invested in America's future Professor arc on fun, professor of citizenship at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Professor, Fun, thank you so much for joining us.

Thanks for having me.

Frankly.

So good to talk to you here this morning.

And joining me in studio to my right, a sweater brother today were sweater, glossy, cuties the Hill Year College associate professor of politics and government at the University of Hartford.

Good Morning, Frank.

In go hawks and go Buckeyes, go Hawks, go Buckeyes.

The red-tailed hawk.

We'll fly in the snow world.

Really be driveby juggle here to the nowadays by the snow.

Did you watch State of the Union?

> > What about the other one?

The people State of the Union.

Or maybe you're benching something on Netflix and said, I don't know.

Tell us about it.

Hit us up on our YouTube stream or call U.S.

8, 8, 720-9677.

Let's talk about last night's State of the Union address.

Milan, any impressions there and maybe not necessarily.

I don't know how long people are watching this thing for.

It's a long speech You know, matter what you think about journalism outlet pretty much all journalists are in agreement that it was all-out.

Let's right.

It was a marathon.

> > You know, actually, for me, let me just go to step it 10,000 feet on this thing, right?

And normally over the years, teaching to encourage my students to watch the State of the Union address, I think in recent years, especially this State of the Union we saw last night, we really points to I think a real troubling shift in the meeting and the purpose of State of the Union addresses.

And so last night, what we saw was a great deal of hyper partisanship.

We saw amazing moments of U 2 or 3 words.

And then the standing round of applause.

It felt more like a reality TV show.

And so entertainment, you know, so the moment rather than talking about where the nation is that the issues, the nation faces and also proposals to deal with some of those challenges going forward.

And I saw a lot less of that occurred last night.

And I think that to me is a troubling sign for our political system at this moment.

But also with the meaning of a State of the Union address actually is > > do you go or do you not go is a big question are kind of get your take on that in a second.

I'm gonna play the clip.

First.

Some Democrats given the State of the Union holding a people say the union with Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy speaking at the event.

Murphy spoke from the National Mall.

You hear about you'll hear from him about why he skipped out on the Trump speech or does.

> > This union is in crisis right now.

> > By lawless law enforcement, our democracy is wilting under ceaseless attack from a president who wants to be a desperate millions of Americans are losing their health care because the president is chosen corruption to pad the pockets of his billionaire friends instead of helping average Americans.

You're not going to hear any of that in that speech tonight.

But by being here for the people's State of the Union, you're going to hear.

> > The real story of America.

> > If you're watching this, you'll see to his left is fairest a good Who was a guest of his now we're going to hear from her and she works in Connecticut as an advocate for migrants.

Take a listen to this as well.

Our county.

> > Miners have caught me.

> > It is safe to goal.

July Chai supply.

Mont.

Woman have asked if they should.

Khan said in addition NASA's.

Afghan families and many and they couldn't find it.

To confuse and about.

Then they got a sax.

And if a tutor at it, Florida work even with saying that on the states.

> > Before we talk about go or don't go.

I guess the big message that folks are having here is you see that that was broadcast on move on, DOT org.

They spoke about an hour before Trump did.

They're talking about things that you're not going here in the State of the Union or at least what they were predicting an hour before and they were right.

There wasn't necessarily any mention of the mention of the Epstein files in the State of the Union last night.

But a big part of that messaging was about ICE and law enforcement Epstein and that case and health care costs.

And that's the point.

Our con is that they're saying that you're not going to hear that in Trump's speeches.

> > Yeah, I think we we didn't.

Well, we certainly heard about immigration in the president's speech.

We didn't hear about the killings of Alex Pretti or Renee good, I guess to your question, I do think it's important for Democrats to go to the State of the Union.

I think it would be good too.

Tamp down the the tendency of political appearances to be social media spots and to introduce a little more reintroduce a little more listening and conversation deliberation.

And I really believe in giving everyone every opportunity to do that and I think Democrats and other people who are opposed to the administration policies have plenty of other opportunities to talk about those issues, which I absolutely agree are very, very important.

It's the kind of political theater part of it that I understand why Senator Murphy and Donald Trump feel like they have to create political theater on social media.

But I think degrades our political deliberation and deliberation, this democracy.

Couple things I want to point out people on I was just going to try to say this is a journalist as best as I can.

The in the lead up.

A lot of the talk was about.

> > If you're going to go, if you're a Democrat sit there quietly and listen.

There's a couple things that happened when Democrats did show up yesterday.

There was what we saw with Al Green, the protest with the sign there was the few moments that I want to remark here.

There was Nancy Pelosi talked about higher hyper partisanship, but Trump didn't have anything nice to say about Nancy.

Never really does.

And then there was the the part where they were talking about stock trading and making it illegal and and that's, of course, a snipe at Nancy Pelosi.

But Elizabeth Warren set up during that and clapped and that seemed to distract the president.

I think it's unfair when that happened.

So go or don't go right.

You know, for me, I think and I think Chuck summed it up.

Well, this is a decision of every lawmaker needs to make, but I think > > For me, it brings me back it.

to my larger point about what is the actual purpose of the State of the Union address and at least I can imagine for the next couple that we will see the hyper partisanship, the attacks on opponents in me.

You know, we have been seeing presidents who point to the opposition party and say they're crazy.

We haven't seen, you know, situation where and this isn't just doing the Trump era, but even going back to the Obama error where the decorum of that moment is broke in were people yell things like you lie ward, you know, extended.

So I think that moment has really changed quite significantly.

And it really is this a sign of the deterioration of our sort of national politics and our ability to use these sort of ritualistic moments that are part of our system to really again deal with the issues that are important to the American people to talk about.

Policy solutions to those problems to use.

This is a moment to unify the country.

This president speaks to his base.

Those are the only people he's really interested in talking to.

And in many ways that talk last night was more like one of his political rallies that was designed to excite his base about what he does and this is setting aside a real discussion about whether anything he really talked about of substance of substance, actually was faction, which is a whole different conversation.

The racism and xenophobia that was on display in this speech.

The tax on the Somali community, the confrontation that you're talking about the very beginning with Representative Al Green, who brought of the sign and said that blacks aren't apes, which is a response to the video he posted, which was directed at Barack Obama and his wife.

And so this has turned into a circus this that you just that you just mentioned that had a reaction, a visceral reaction that is that this 2026 in a nutshell that somebody has to bring a sign that says that.

> > And before I get to our con, you're talking about hyper partisanship.

They played a clip on CNN less yesterday when they had Nancy Pelosi on the show.

And of course, Nancy Pelosi hasn't gotten any sort of respect from from Trump, but they played a clip of a Bush State of the Union when he says I get to say this for the first time, Madam Secretary, that you get a standing ovation, different times are kind of America in 2026.

Yeah.

> > Bowl, I'm wondering I have mixed feelings about that.

Al Green.

I think it was very appropriate for him to put up the sign because the post that went up on the president's truth.

Social account was Horan and racist.

But then it creates.

I think that was the moment a social media moment that the president was looking for is to demonstrate that Representative Green and Representative.

> > Omar, you know, to depict them as > > angry off the chain irrational.

All.

But I think in both of those cases, I applaud their push back.

But I don't know if it's going to be successful politically.

It may be more successful for the president.

> > And again, I think this speaks to the base.

I mean, for many in the black community the attacks on Barack Obama, who is still the most popular one of the most popular people in the face of the planet and certainly within the black community.

I often joke with people they can tell me when his birthday is, but she struggles to remember my birthday and so this is an incredibly did an exercise rider actually faced But you did that.

Yes, exactly.

I remember so for many people, especially in the black community, this push back with something that they didn't even see occur with Barack Obama.

But I think in general, our kind of think you're right in terms of how this may or may not be interpreted.

But I think for the Democratic Party base who feels like the party is not pushing back enough and really fighting fire with fire.

That was one of those viral moments.

And I think you're right.

It's all now placed with social media plays for, you know, click bait some even that's the world we live in right now in our politics.

I think it is harmful for democracy, but it's a part of what we are now faced with.

That's great.

One thing we're going to talk about later is the potential for federal Republican lawmakers to try to change filibuster rules to get a voting reform package called the Save America Act passed.

And I'm kind of running through this now because I want to get to the > > Lauro interview so that we could talk a little bit more later.

Courtney, Joe Courtney and I talked over Zoom yesterday.

Courtney says the Trump and Senate Republicans should instead be focused on getting an extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies pass through Congress to alleviate skyrocketing health care premiums.

One of his guests that he brought down to DC is a constituent from Mystic.

And this is LIBOR Debt.

Williams, let's hear from her.

She says she and her spouse are now paying $2500 a month for health insurance that used to cost > > We are very fortunate that $750.

we are able 2 pay this high premium every month we've had to tighten our belts in ways that are pretty discouraging for 2 people who have worked and saved our entire lives.

> > So there is that GOP push to get the save act passed and yet the extension of health care subsidies has stalled.

We're talking about political will here and what people are focused on what they're not focused on.

But I think our con.

> > guess I think that the the > > I priorities are a little bit during Tom at the same time.

You know, I think there's the affordability debate, which I think is extremely important.

People are hurting, especially on the health care issue.

> > But then there are the range of issues that > > are for about affordability.

core issues for the traditional progress.

As like the creeping authoritarianism ice, democratic backsliding and, you know, kind of I resist the centrist argument.

The plated a moderate and middle argument.

I think you need to do absolutely both.

At the same time, I don't see any reason why they're well, you have a quick thought.

> > No, I absolutely agree with our come with the same.

I think, you know, chewing gum walking at the same time.

It's just something that politicians ought to be able to do.

You know, certainly when so many of your constituents want to see, you know, these issues around affordability I think the Democratic Party historically has been a party that is so the viewed itself is a working class party.

The deals with those kinds of issues.

But I think also the same time the threats to our democracy are real.

And, you know, the creeping authoritarianism, Israel, the concentration of corporate power and billionaire class and the influence they have.

I mean, all of these things should scare the budgie bees out of the use of Joe Biden type.

We're going to do these out of all of us.

You know, in that particular sense.

And so I think yes, they have to do both from Connecticut Public Radio.

This is the Wheelhouse.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

You've been listening to professor are kind of fun, professor of citizenship at the > > Harvard Kennedy School and Dr Velocity coup professor at the University of Hartford.

They're going to stick with us.

But first, we're going to talk to Rosa de Laura, who was at last night's State of the Union tells us why she went even though some of her colleagues didn't go and she updates us on a federal funding fight involving the agency that houses federal, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.

We're standing by to take your reaction.

Hit us up on our YouTube stream or call 8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, Rosa DeLauro is next on the Wheelhouse.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ This is the Wheelhouse from Connecticut Public Radio.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

> > Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro has a full plate on Capitol Hill right now.

She presumably took a break last night from brokering negotiations on a federal funding resolution involving money for the Department of Homeland Security taken President Donald Trump's State of the Union address.

I spoke to her Tuesday a few hours before she went down to the chamber to hear Trump speak.

Here's that conversation.

Now.

I'm joined by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, Congresswoman DeLauro.

So great to have you on the show today.

Thank you for joining us.

Wonderful to be with you, my friend.

Thank you for joining us from Capitol Hill.

We appreciate having you on the show.

They were taping this hours before the State of the Union address.

So people are going to see it live on Wednesday morning or excuse me, the receipt on Wednesday morning.

But help me just understand this.

You're going to the State of the Union, some other folks are going help me with your decision to go and why it's important to go in your member of the Congress, the president is.

> > Gives the State of the Union address every year around this time and so I think that's part of my job, too.

Going to listen and to listen to what he has to say.

It's very simple.

It's my job.

> > What about for the other folks that are going your colleagues that are really going to make I don't you know, I don't comment on what others want to do.

I know what I'm gonna do.

> > There's reaction real-time to what's going on with the administration.

That also involves.

> > Funding.

And there's all the work that you're doing in appropriations to try to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security can get some funding.

Can you kind of update us on what's happening there?

> > Sure.

And I'm happy happy to do that and show that people know if funding for the Department of Homeland Security has lapsed and it is it really is unfortunate you know, my Republican colleagues would rather defend the lawlessness and the recklessness of ice and then to pay t s a personnel.

Our of FEMA.

These are all issues on which there is agreement.

So there is no need to hold up the funding for these folks.

But as I said, unfortunately, the last offer we made to do the Republicans to the White House was about a week ago and so far as far as I know from this morning that we have not heard anything back.

So there's an unwillingness to really negotiate that so that people of 4th.

2 to work without We reduced our disaster relief funding if we negatively impact all these other areas.

It really is result of an intransigent of the that the White House by Republican colleagues to engage in the conversation let me just let me just say this.

You because I introduced legislation I introduced in about 3 weeks ago what we would do is to fund.

TSA, FEMA Coast Guard a cybersecurity Secret Service.

It's actually there's no disagreement on any of Why should these folks, the held hostage?

Let's those agencies through the rest of the year.

In the meantime, on a parallel track left as debate, the issue of of ice and where that's going because that's where the difficulty lies.

It you know, lie with the other agencies.

And so that is something that I am you know, I think makes good sense for us to do to keep these agencies going and to have a very serious conversation about what is a lawless and reckless out of control agency with ICE.

Where's the holdup in terms of what the Republicans are?

Is this something that you've worked out?

> > Within your happening and the centers are just the White House.

> > No, no.

I mean that that the legislation is there were getting co-sponsors and he but my Republican colleagues and I'm you getting the bill, was so forth.

But we're looking at various ways in which we can.

You know, get this bill, least in some way to the floor of the house and so forth to you know, to to, to address the issue, which is very serious because I think the negotiations over eyes are going to go on for a while.

It's not a slam dunk.

And so why are we going to hold up?

You know, these people are working.

It was not getting paid and that that's crazy.

> > The formal support for having a funding bill for DHS.

There conflating that with not wanting to abolish ICE are not wanted to have these reforms.

So what do you say to those people that have criticized you all that have voted formally for the proposal in the last couple of weeks.

What would you we say I think leaders that have come out.

What would you say to them?

> > No change.

And just very look, we have the opportunity to overhaul to reform an agent state and we can begin to do that in in the in the short term.

Imagine if we got him to say yes to a judicial warrant.

A mention with before, would that not be?

If we said you can't go, do we protect sensitive locations with these are real reforms so far.

So and by the same token, we have agencies that are part of this bill who are functioning very well and there was no disagreement on it.

Let us fund those pieces and let's have a discussion about case.

> > I'm glad we talked to clear that up.

That's very important information, nuance there.

Let's talk about the GOP effort to overhaul voting.

Here is least what we're seeing in the last couple of months here in terms of potentially having voter ID, it's called the Save America Act or excuse me, a certain voter ID requirements that would be stricter would impose stricter voter ID requirements.

What are your thoughts on the proposal that's sponsored by the U.S.

House?

There would chip that Republican that's in the House and then a Senator Mike Lee.

Yeah, listen.

> > I'm going to vote every year.

Sometimes couple times you hear, you know, and I asked for ID and I take out my driver's license.

I handed over to the clerk.

She checks that she looks at it.

She can faction handed back to me and then I proceed to go and headed to cast my vote.

So having an ID, I don't have a problem with it.

But let's take a look at where with what this is about.

Thank you.

Let's take a look at what this is about this is about voter suppression.

That is what the end goal here.

if you're going to it is not disenfranchising millions of eligible voters.

I just a couple of things I think that putting and burdensome restrictions that you need to have a passport.

The United States does not have to have a passport to use for identification.

And, you know, it's around $13040 to get a passport Costa limping.

You going charge people get a passport in order to create it in order to be able to and proof of identification of for so many women.

This is so burdensome for women.

Women change their names.

You know, and then you got to go back in and get a birth certificate or some other enough to change your license.

Not really changed I guess.

But my point is.

This is the point.

no one.

It says that you shouldn't have a way to identify yourself.

We had the system in place.

And, you the save act is based on a lie.

President Trump has continually paddle since January 6.

Here is widespread voter feel there is not.

And that has been documented.

Document.

And so what this again is it is about voter suppression.

It's a not going after fraud and it is really.

Disenfranchise millions and millions of eligible voters and put in people be afraid to go to vote.

So it's going to be that this makes it hard, as I said, for American women, military voters, rural voters, people of color, elderly students, lower income Americans, inception Native Americans.

it's a false premise.

And I voted no on the legislation that will continue to vote.

Now you can help us out with this because it seems like from an outsider's perspective that things are sort of changing on a daily basis down on Capitol Hill.

> > In terms of when the filibuster might apply and when it might not.

So least what we're hearing from the outside is that while this is obviously passed the House in the Senate, there's talk about Republicans maneuvering around the filibuster to make it happen.

Maybe it's going to take a majority vote rather than 60 votes.

A simple majority vote.

So help me understand what you're hearing on that front.

> > Well, look, I you know, ice my senses.

That is the same kind understanding of the very nature of this legislation in the Senate is there is in the House that again, this ways in which to suppress the vote.

that has is not the first time it's happened.

I mean, I think the Trump administration is look for any number of ways to suppress the vote and to make people at eligible to cast a vote here.

you're talking.

You're talking about voter suppression here as they're concerned.

When you hear about voter suppression, you're actually talking about > > In your office, are you this.

concerned about our democracy would have to talk about something?

it's a book that, you know, many people died for the right to vote in this nation.

It's fundamental.

It's who we are.

It's you know, as I say, this is premised on this line.

> > That president has made over and over again.

You can save as many times as you like, but it's still alive because widespread voter fraud that is not the case.

And people have fought and died to be able to cast a vote.

And this administration, this president, what he wants to do with to deny people a vote and to disenfranchise them and it is fundamental.

It really bedrock for the U.S.

government and the rule of law for this for people to be able to exercise your right to vote in this country.

> > Last question here in a midterm year with all these questions that you're having about democracy and some of the things that we're seeing with the Trump administration and even some talk from the 2020 election, which is already been decided here.

Are you worried about GOP efforts to reshape ballot access here ahead of the election isn't over?

Yes, by and absolutely.

anything that could be done to sort of combating you want do is to safeguard against that.

I also think > > I don't put it past this administration, you know, to pose National Guard people to intimidate folks about coming out to vote.

I I I think we have to be very mindful.

We have to work with the courts.

We have to be vigilant about what they're doing and where they where they want to go.

We have to preserve the right to vote in the United States.

Congresswoman DeLauro, thank you so much for coming on the Wheelhouse this morning.

Thank you so much.

Pleasure to talk to you.

Take care.

From Connecticut Public Radio.

This is the Wheelhouse.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

After the break, our con funk and velocity COO will be back to drive to dive deeper into the save act.

Look at the reading this morning.

> > And while it's only February talking about the sort of democratic items and ideas because things happening in November.

The midterms are coming we're here to talk about it.

Hit us up now at 8, 8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, Back with more.

We'll house after a short break.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ This is the Wheelhouse from Connecticut Public Radio.

I'm afraid Graziano.

We heard from Connecticut Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro with an update on what's happening on Capitol Hill from a GOP led voting reform package called the Save America Act to last night's State of the Union.

Now back to take us through the save act and into the midterm elections are professor Arc on phone professor citizenship at the Harvard Kennedy School and the last coup.

The associate professor of politics and government at the University of Hartford causing the next few minutes to get out before the show ends kind about a 16 17 minutes left of airtime.

See better.

Make sure you call right now.

Taking calls on everything we can.

Everything we're talking about say the Union Save Act.

Midterms.

If you're brief, we can talk about anything.

Really.

88, 720-9677.

We addressed a few things.

There be a lull with the a congresswoman, including the Save America Act, which would introduce stricter voting ID requirements and recently passed through the U.S.

House.

She says it's a bill based on a lie claims of voter fraud in 2020 election haven't been a substantiated in federal court.

What do you say?

Yeah, I mean, it's really hard to top anything she said.

I think she laid out the case for why this is just bad public policy.

And the hope is that the Democrats will > > hold the line and will not allow this to pass in the Senate.

One of things I'm struck by is that back in 2002, Republican presidents signed the Help America Vote Act right.

And what it is so sharply different about this effort and move representative is correct.

It is an effort to suppress voting rights.

But when we think about the Help America Vote Act, it was about helping Americans vote.

It did things like expanding the number of documents you could use 2.

Actually vote on Election Day.

And so in addition to photo identification can come in with, you know, a receipt from a utility bill.

I am a bit trouble because she's not the first Democrat I've heard say that they're OK with photo ID requirements.

One of the things that was great about the Help America Vote Act is is that it expanded the type of document that could be used in order to vote because what's at risk is probably about 9% of the population does not have a photo identification or easy way to prove their citizenship become a 21 million eligible voters who may, in fact be prevented from.

I think it was a like a rock, some kind of identification being show and because you saw the turn their lives, she said that this is not about that.

> > But the but the way she describes in the way she starts off of Be next for photo ID, your X-ray dedication.

Your next bill photo.

I D.

> > Photo ID is a form of identification that you can present.

I think it's important to make that point because If you can see that ground right, then it becomes a kind of poll tax.

People have to go out and pay for real ID.

People have to go out in a lot of people.

Don't have those documents.

Lot of immigrants who've been naturalized as citizens may not have easy access to documents like birth certificates and other things.

So this says he's absolutely right.

This is an effort to disenfranchise people, but they're absolutely wrong.

I think in seeding that kind of grau language really matters.

And if it comes out that this becomes an effort to institute a national photo, I D I think that will result in millions of Americans losing their right to vote losing their ability to voting to participate in the political system.

And that's a good point, law, because if you think about it, the today's what about is about voter ID right now.

> > And if you are talking about the Save America Act, you're going to be asked are con.

Well, do you not want voter ID do support voter ID at the polls?

So that's kind of like a what Democrats are dealing with on this issue or at least the opposition.

> > So I think the current version of the Save Act is pretty bonkers.

And it goes way beyond Biden.

Wary bonkers fighter.

Biden is way to be on the voter ID debates that we've been having for a long time and so, you know, imagine we'll get into some of the details of the save act and lots of people talk about, you know, worry about the details and who's going to be disenfranchised.

But I think there's like 3, the 3 things to worry about.

One which Representative DeLauro talked about.

But I want lift up here is I think the main thing it's about is a narrative about what's happening in American politics and the premise of the Save Act is that there are millions of people who are non-citizens who are voting and it's a Democrat part of the Democrat political ploy that begins with open borders to let a bunch of immigrants in who are non-citizens and then take over the political process by voting.

And so that's the problem that the save act is meant to solve by requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.

And now in the most recent version to vote and so it's probably for a bunch of your listeners.

Frankie, it seems like, oh, well, nobody really believes that.

But that's not true.

A lot of people actually believe that narrative to be true in public opinion polls and thus the debate about the save act validates that narrative.

It's like, oh, we have to have this major piece of legislation to solve this problem of massive non-citizen voting.

But all of those at the actual kind of evidence is that there is none of skilled non-citizen voting.

So Utah went through its whole voters that voter rolls to find how many non-citizens and they found one and Texas is down a similar exercise and Michigan has done a similar exercise and I was done a similar exercise.

> > And it ends up being just the action of one percent.

Even in the Texas I'm gonna I'm gonna do what you're talking about here.

And I'm gonna move the goalposts as you're kind of alluding to, right?

Their first of.

> > I'm going to do a journalistic interpretation of what Donald Trump said in the State of the Union last night regarding the Save America Act.

And it goes as follows.

Trump asked people to support the save act in a speech last night repeating false claims about widespread non-citizen voter fraud.

That's not what he said.

But we're giving you a paraphrased version of it because some of that language you are alluding to was in his speech and it was very divisive and and where it isn't true is in the federal lawsuits that were filed to try to figure out what happened in the 2020 election where they say there was widespread fraud and 64 at last count at last count in terms of trying to prove voter fraud.

Now are con.

You're talking about voter rules.

What's being brought up a lot of times as we hear this and I watched all the shows last night.

So it's in my head is the purging of voter rolls and looking through this, you talked about Utah having one in Kansas.

I think there was 9 some folks will then say, well, do you want to have any voter fraud?

And all we're trying to purge the road or voter rolls here.

And we succeeded because we got water.

We got 9.

That's one example of the goalpost sort of moving.

So where where are you at this conversation, guys?

Are you are you willing to keep having it over the next 8 months here before the midterms?

> > Live, Arkansas first.

If he's got a you're about to pull out a notebook here, excited to patients.

willing to have the secure elections conversation.

Absolutely.

I think there should be.

> > That trust and only people are eligible to vote should should be able to, though.

Absolutely.

But this is but the save act again is premised on this narrative that is just so flatly not true.

And then there are 2 other things about the save act.

One is the chaos factor, right?

If it were actually to go into effect and it's intended to go into fact before the midterms.

So many election year, every election jurisdiction would have to change how it does business in a very short amount of time, right?

And so I think that creates all sorts of problems.

And, you know, on after that day in November, are there's going to be all sorts of fights about how quickly they were able to implement and do what they were supposed to do if it passes, which I think it probably won't right.

And then the 3rd factor is the disenfranchisement factor, which both the law and Representative de La Row brought up.

But that one is confusing to me, right?

Old-style poll taxes and, you know, kind of getting voting booths off of college campuses.

That's pretty targeted.

But we don't know.

I think what the disenfranchisement effects of this thing would be were it to kick in like the the states where the leave people have the least likely to have passports are very, very red states.

Right?

And so you gonna have to have a passport or a birth certificate to prove your citizenship to register to vote and like, how does that cut in terms of Democrats and Republicans?

And I don't really know.

And by the way, it's illegal to vote in federal elections.

If you're not citizens.

> > absolute already.

Yeah.

All right.

The only thing I would have a couple things I would add to what our counties say.

It is saying, though, is that even when we look at the history of voting suppression, especially as it took place in the South.

> > Not only were blacks being disenfranchised, but also many poor white to being disenfranchised as well.

And ultimately the goal was political power and the ability of the leads to dominate.

And I think what we have clearly isn't all of our class of people who feel like they should be in power and really do believe that everybody should vote unless they vote the way they want them to vote.

The one thing I will add is the 4th piece of what our Con said is that this is unconstitutional.

The U.S.

Constitution leaves to the states the right to decide the are you live.

Most of these federal rules within the last month, an amendment.

it's so this this idea that the federal government can sort of stepping in and do this right.

> > Is simply goes against what the spirit of the Constitution is about.

It goes against what the founders did when they created the Constitution.

> > And they handed over that responsibility to the states in terms of the vote in terms of determine eligibility for who can vote again.

What's interesting about this, this is an effort to take away a right as opposed to expanding the right.

And that's something we should all be deeply troubled about.

We're living in a in a c***** time in America is the best thing I want to use.

The sh were there said, but I say happy because > > just on the point that you're making, I listen last night, too.

A woman, a black woman talk about how her grandmother didn't have.

I D.

> > was unable to have a birth certificate and present it.

> > And always had to go through different means to show ID and then one of the colleagues have the days.

said, yeah, Americans need to work harder it.

So we're just in a time where you're not necessarily going to understand what your fellow man or woman or person is going through at this time.

There's the save.

Act are kind.

And then according to The New York Times, there's the Make Elections Great Again.

Act mega, mega that includes other congressional efforts to sort of and at the electorate.

That's one way to put it.

> > Yeah.

would eliminate ranked choice voting.

It I believe require.

> > states to go through and purge the voting rolls.

> > More often and I think those some of the main things that it would require.

It is.

And then it would require strict voter ID.

Although the strict voter ID has been rolled into the current version of the Save Act is kind of my reading of of what happened, which is like important to understand.

So, kind of mega goes a couple steps further.

So.

And I really like what our Kiahnna said, that this is premised on something that > > many people, especially in the base of the Republican Party, but also among a lot of Republican lawmakers, state elected officials really believe this idea that the election was stolen.

What I'm particularly nervous about it, even if they don't succeed at the national level, I think we're going to see various parts of this implemented at the state level in red states.

> > Chris, in West Hartford, you have a phone call and I'm gonna have a lot of the sect it because he knows a little bit of 2 about voting rights and Connecticut.

Go ahead, Chris.

> > Yes, I was wondering in light of all of this, is there anything the the Legislature can or should do to protect our rights as voters in Connecticut.

> > Shout out to Chris and shout out to the League of Women.

Voters of Connecticut.

Thank you so much for the call.

Chris.

I'm gonna go through this really quickly.

Go ahead.

Look very good question.

I think one of the things that's interesting about Connecticut in my work with common cause and also serving at one point on the national Governing board with > > Was that we really worked our con.

very hard in Connecticut to expand access to the vote here in the state.

And so we did a number of things that you're likely to see rollback in other states.

We've actually brought in introduce here in Connecticut and I think our elections are safer than they are.

Many other places.

We have a secretary of state and Stephanie Thomas, who I think it's really deeply committed to not only protecting our elections, making sure that this secure, but also expanding access and opportunity.

I think we have a governor who feels that way and also legislature that also feels that way, some less concerned, at least in Connecticut.

We're seeing those things back.

Why haven't been looking at you in your face and have been digging into my iPad last couple of minutes because I was trying to see the Connecticut Voting Rights Act, right?

We tried to codified or at least we did at the John R Lewis Voting Rights Act into law in Connecticut, right?

Yeah.

And that was accomplished.

And here in Connecticut and again, we've had success.

We've expanded the voting rights of people on.

> > Pero we've expanded to implement, adding on early voting.

We've done no excuse absentee voting.

This still trying to figure out how to make that process work.

But we've also added a number of other election.

You know, measures that really expand access and opportunity and the state and that since Connecticut actually deserves a lot of credit, we did all of that because we were actually lagging behind in many ways in those areas.

That was a very difficult journey.

Took us about 20 years to accomplish a lot of this.

But I think Connecticut is made tremendous progress.

Our kiahnna have a sort of a hypothetical for you.

I guess not a hypothetical because at least is being bandied about in Congress right now.

Are you for Congress requiring state to give their voting rolls to the Department of Homeland Security.

> > am a question.

for that.

I mean, it's happening and it's interesting > > a number, a large number, the vast majority election officials, both Democrat and Republican, have a result.

resisted that initiative, I think in large part because they don't know what the federal government and what DOJ will do with that data at all.

And you know that I think rightly they consider it part of their obligation to protect the data security of people in their states.

So no, I would favor.

That is a lot of things happening in Fulton County, Georgia right now, the law and we tax about this a little bit back and forth trying to figure out what's happening there.

> > And again, the legislation, the litigation is dictated that the Trump administration is not winning in federal court trying to prove that the 2020 election had widespread fraud yet they're digging into votes and they actually see some, as I understand it in in in Fulton County.

But it's that kind of have.

I mean, it will be interesting with our con has to say up to what I say.

But I really think this isn't about finding evidence of fraud.

This is about continuing the sow the seeds of > > Dow about the integrity of our elections right?

And so this continues that sort of broaden narrative of massive election fraud, the belief that you really can't trust the outcome of elections, especially if Republicans, for example, Moos than that clearly is evidence that for all or that the election was stolen.

So I think what season the ballots in Fulton County and also what will likely happen going forward into 2026 where we will see an uptick in ice activity in the number of states, especially blue states, especially critical battleground areas of the country.

We're likely to see maybe even with a photo have to do with Immigration and Customs.

And again, the idea is intimidation.

The idea is sowing seeds of doubt about the integrity of the election.

The outcome of the election, unless it's the outcome that the president approves of.

And I think ultimately that is the golden egg to find anything.

There been multiple audits in Fulton County.

You're not go funny thing.

All our counties already talked about the research has been done.

Even the heritage found a foundation did a huge study of voting that occurred and found very little evidence of any kind of real.

So too voter fraud.

And so this is a red herring, but it's really designed.

They do so seeds of doubt archive.

This is from the White House voter ID is extremely popular with Americans.

Fact, it says.

> > 83% of Americans favor requiring all voters to show government-issued photo ID to vote.

So you talked about them using one part of the narrative to say that people want this.

Do people really want this with the public opinion shows?

> > Yeah, the public opinion.

I think that's that's right.

The public opinion is in favor of voter ID, but are the neighbors the save act?

I think is the question.

Yes, that's very different.

The save act requires proof of citizenship which amounts to a passport or birth certificate for most people which is much, much, much more demanding than just about any state's voter ID.

I mean, I think they're probably 4 or 5 that have drivers licenses that testify to citizenship.

But it's much, much more demanding I want to go back to Fulton County for a second.

I us carrier kind of interpretation.

The scarier thing about there's that certainly belongs, correct about the backward looking, you know, Trump bullies, really.

He really won Georgia.

The the second tier are cots.

Are those all right.

The scary thing about Fulton County is that it sets a precedent.

So what if the FBI and the DOJ sees ballot boxes in November 2026.

In jurisdictions where they suspect that there's voter fraud and that breaks the chain of custody of the ballots and it becomes very difficult to determine who actually won those jurisdictions.

We ran out of time, unfortunately Manika talked about this with you guys all day.

Professor are con fun.

Harvard Kennedy School professor, thank you for coming on the show.

> > Thank you, Frankie and Dr.

Glossy coup professor at the University of Hartford.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Today show produced by tally Ricketson want to show was edited by Patrick Scale.

Thank you.

Dillon Reyes and Bradley O'Connor and the rest of our crew here.

And Megan Boone, download the Wheelhouse anytime on your favorite podcast app.

Frankie Graziano.

This is the Wheelhouse.

Thank you for listening.

♪