“A 100-Year Storm”: Ben Ginsberg on Bush v. Gore Turning 25, Restoring Confidence in U.S. Elections

- It is Wednesday, December 10th, 2025, and you're listening to Matters of Policy and Politics, a podcast devoted to the discussion of policy research from the Hoover Institution, as well as issues of local, national and geopolitical concern. I'm Bill Whalen. I'm the Virginia Hobbs Carpenter distinguished policy fellow in journalism. I'm not the only fellow who's doing podcasting these days. I recommend you go to our website, hoover.org, actually hoover.org/podcast and see what our whole lineup is. That includes, by the way, the audio version of the Good Fellows broadcast that I have the honor of doing with Neil Ferguson, HR McMaster and John Cochran. Well, May, 1967, the Beatles gifted the world with a remarkable album called Sergeant Pepper's Only Hearts Club Band, and it included the lyrics. It was 20 years ago today that Sergeant Pepper taught the band to play well today being December 12th, 2025. It is 25 years ago today, the Supreme Court handed out its ruling in Bush v Gore, which decided not only the outcome in that year's presidential vote in Florida, George W. Bush, the winner by 537 votes outta nearly 6 million votes cast, but also settled the question of who had become America's 40th third president. Now, if you circle back to the Hoover Institution's website, you will find a web channel called Defining Ideas. I have a column on there today which talks about the ruling, not in terms of its legality, but in terms of political dominoes. It's a very fun little political what if, and here's what I speculated on, and I hope you do read the articles. It was very fun to write if the election goes the other way. If the court hands the ruling, if the court rules in favor of Al Gore, we're looking at maybe two terms of an Al Gore presidency, which means that by 2008 you're probably not gonna get a Barack Obama presidency, because now you would've looked at 16 years of Democratic presidents and coupled with perhaps a financial crisis, the same one that saddle Bush and his last year in office, you have right pickings, easy pickings for Republican to come along. What I speculate is that Republican will be not George Bush, but Jeb Bush, who we forget, was a very hot political commodity. Come 2007, 2008, he just stepped down as the governor of Florida at that time. You now get two terms of Jeb Bush, and by 2016, that begs the question, do you get Donald Trump? And the answer is maybe not, because if you have a Bush presidency and a Gore presidency, you maybe don't have the forever wars. You perhaps don't have Obamacare, you don't have the helicoptering of money in the first year of Obama's presidency. You don't have the rather condescending look at middle America, the forgotten American as Donald Trump called it in 2016, and short US a very different America. And I would contend that Bush V goers maybe a domino for that. So joining me today to talk about that plus other madams around this case, my guest today was not only involved in legal maneuvering that played out in the 36 days between election day 2000 and the court's decision, but he is now a leading voice on election integrity and restoring confidence in America's democratic process. I'm referring to, of course, my friend and colleague Ben Ginsburg. Ben is the Hoover Institution's Volcker Distinguished visiting fellow, and one of the leaders of Hoover's improving American Elections Initiative and a contributor to Hoover's tenant bond program for fact-based policy. In the year 2000, Ben Ginsburg served as national council for the Bush Cheney campaign. Ben's gonna take us back and explain how the legal drama unfolded as well as its legacy today regarding future elections. Ben, welcome to the podcast. Great to have you back. I should note, by the way, that you're an excellent podcaster and you own right, you're a wonderful Saint Senator and salvageable series. I want you to know that my friend, that I respect you to the point where I actually did my homework for this podcast. Rather than going to the cliff notes, which is watching the movie Recount, HBO, I actually pulled out Bob Snicks excellent book from 2001, winning Florida, how the Bush Team fought the Battle. Is that a good place to start, Ben, with looking at what happened in 2000?

- It is a good place to start. Thank you for having me. It is always an honor, privilege, and pleasure to be on your podcast, bill.

- Okay, so I wanna take you back then to the events of November, 2000 in this regard. I remember this day specifically, I was here at the Hoover Institution. I was invited to an election night viewing party in San Francisco of all places that bastion of Republican politics. I remember driving up to San Francisco with the night, Ben, it was kind of a rainy, foggy night, and the early returns were pouring in and it looked like a very big night for Al Gore CBS radio, almost every 15 minutes coming up with a new state going to Florida, and that was going to Gore and then included Florida. And then Ben. A funny thing happens later in the night, things take a turn and now George Bush starts winning elections around the country. And guess what the media think that Bush has maybe gonna win this election. The media, in fact, having declared Florida for Gore, they take it back and they give it to George W. Bush. And now Ben George W. Bush has 207 electoral votes, and he's the president of the United States. Al Gore agrees and he calls and he concedes the election of George W. Bush. And then guess what happens? Ben Al Gore talks to his people and then he takes it back, and now we're in political limbo land. Meanwhile, Ben Ginsburg is figuring what the heck is going on? And you're looking at the numbers, the good lawyer that you are, and by four o'clock in the morning you've come to a conclusion, there's going to be a recount in Florida. And by 10:00 AM that morning you're on a plane to Tallahassee. Take us from there, Ben.

- All true. It was a flight that stopped first in Tampa, then went on to Orlando and to Jacksonville, and finally to Tallahassee. We were doing sort of flying seminars of Recount law as we dropped Wiley political operatives off and lawyers off to be able to, to handle the case for us. We arrived in the Cinder block palace, that was the Florida Republican Party headquarters, about seven o'clock at night. Secretary James Baker, who led our efforts brilliantly, was there. There were six of us in that conference room kind of figuring out, well, holy cow, what do you do now? And one of the wonderful things about political people, and especially the people on the Bush campaign in 2000, is that they knew how to get stuff done quickly. So within 48 hours, there were 800 people on the ground. The activities were concentrated in four counties, not coincidentally, the Democrats for best counties in Florida. And so we dispatched lawyers and political people and communicators, press people, and the logistical wizards who made it all work to those jurisdictions in particular, but really all over the state. And then the fun and Mary Mint began

- And tell us who was in part, who was involved on the Democratic side, who Al Gore's team had Mustard Descend of Florida. And then I want you to tell me some of the principles on the Bush side, because there's some names that people are gonna recognize.

- Yeah, the, the Gore campaign chose Warren Christopher, a former Secretary of State, like Secretary Baker, to head up the efforts. Ron Clean, who went on to be Joe Biden's, chief of staff in his presidency actually ran the, the recount for the Gore team. David Boies was their primary lawyer in arguing the cases, although they had a number of others. You know, it is important to remember that there were some 40 separate litigation matters that were filed in various counties around the state. So we had lots and lots of lawyers and people watching the ballots being counted, and folks helping out in all sorts of ways there in terms of, of our principles. I mean, secretary Baker was just a, an, an exemplar of a leader of a recount from his, his skills as a constitutional lawyer, as a litigator, as a communicator, as somebody who had run national campaigns. And so we had a very defined structure with people and responsibilities. Now, Ted Olson went on to become Solicitor General of the United States, was our lead lawyer. Joe Alba, who's the Bush campaign manager, was kind of the guy in charge of logistics on the ground in Cal, in Tallahassee. Ken Melman, who went on to head the RNC is now a very successful banker and investment fellow was the political director. And so he went on to kind of galvanize the ground troops among the lawyers. We had three people who are current Supreme Court justices helping us on the ground. A number of US senators and governors and representatives had various functions and went on to various functions. It really is quite amazing, especially in this 25th year anniversary, to think back on the array of talent that we had on the ground in Florida. And then really to go on and see the tremendous successes in, in their careers.

- You had a really interesting quote about your colleagues, Ben, you said, of the Bush legal team. And I quote, this was the biggest group of egos, not flexing their egos ever been associated with.

- It was really true. And that was, you know, James Baker. So led by example in demeanor and preparation and and tone. And he made it abundantly clear that egos were to be checked at the door, that this was such a historic and important and really great mission that we were all on, that the usual legal posturing was, was not, not invited.

- And the three future justices you mentioned, Ben, that is Justice Roberts,

- Justice Roberts, justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett.

- Did you see Future Supreme Court talent in those three when you were watching them? Or were you just so busy he dealing with everything? Well,

- They were all leading members of the bar at the time. I mean, John Roberts was sort of part of the brain trust that I was fortunate enough to have when I was counsel at the RNC and doing redistricting work. Brett Kavanaugh worked on the campaign, so we knew him well there, I gotta confess that I did not know that Justice Barrett was part of our team. So Vast was our team until she got nominated for the Supreme Court. Reporters started calling me up and asking me for my, for my recollections. One of the, one of the great things about our recruiting for the effort was that we had many, many Supreme Court justices or clerks, Supreme Court clerks working for us in Florida. And I, unfortunately, I never came in direct contact with her.

- Alright, so 36 days before the court, hands down this decision, Ben, take us through the Bush and Gore strategies is, is as simple as the Bush campaign did want to, did not wanna engage in recounts, whereas the Gore campaign wanted to create recounts wherever it could and then also drive this narrative that he won the national vote and therefore he's the legitimate winner.

- Look it it, any recount, and I had done multiple recounts beforehand before this in any recount, the side that is losing wants to loosen the rules to let in as many potential votes as possible to reverse the outcome. And the team that's ahead says, boy, you know, the votes on election day, they've been counted. There was an automatic recount in Florida the machines, there were some further examinations. We were ahead in all those counts this election. Good, there are tight elections, but there are still winners. And so our goal in this was really to enforce what was printed on every voting machine in Florida, every punch card voting machine that for a vote to count, you had to punch the chat all the way through to have your vote count. And the Gore folks wanted to come up with a standard really based on intent of the voter, which, which they felt would let more votes in for them. And so the, the battle of course took a lot of twists and turns, but that sort of was the fundamentals of, of where we were in the, in the recount.

- And when you're a lawyer, you're always looking at precedent, legal precedent, Ben, but this is a rather unique election. You had one state that was determined in the national election. You go back to 1960, which would be the closest election before 2000. John Kennedy wins by about 113,000 votes at about less than 0.2% nationally. There is a question of votes in Texas and Illinois in that election, but we are not going through recounts and certainly not 36 days of drama. I think Ben Nixon to conceded the next morning, actually the next afternoon. So that's over pretty quick. You go back to 1876. Now we have a genuine controversy that drags out. But here Ben, you have a question of vote counts and conflicting electors in multiple states, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida. So tell me how your legal team is dealing in the here and now, but also looking at presidential history to get a guideline as to how to develop your strategy.

- Well, there were not really any previous recounts that were, that were helpful as precedent, with the exception of a Florida recount that I had done involving Connie Mac and Buddy Chiles back in 1988, in which there was some useful precedent that was set for Florida law. I mean, you'll recall that one of the early issues was the butterfly ballot.

- Yep.

- Where the Gore folks claimed confusion with the ballot. Well, I knew from the Connie Mack race that there had been a decision involving Mel Martinez's gubernatorial race in 1986 that basically said Florida law has both parties look at the ballots and sign off on the ballots the Friday before election day. And that was clear law and sour grapes complaints based on the form of the ballot were invalid under Florida law. So I think that was the most useful precedent to help with this. But there was one other recount that provided some sort of interesting precedent, and that was the McIntyre McCloskey recount in 1984, the bloody eighth first recount.

- That's Indiana, that's Indiana, right?

- That's Indiana that I had had done as a lawyer. And the, the Republican had actually won and been certified by the state, but the Democrats got courts to reverse it on equal protection grounds. In other words, their claim was that similarly marked ballots were treated differently and therefore it was not. Right. So that proved to be a useful precedent for us. Equal protection is not a traditional Republican legal theory, but there was precedent Ford in this case. And certainly when the recounting of ballots took place in the four Democratic counties under the direction of democratically elected counting judges, we had an awful lot of evidence that we were looking for from the beginning of ballots that were marked the same but counted differently under really subjective decisions by partisan officials. So that was the, the most useful precedent. Bill. I will say that I, secretary Baker, I think relied on any number of different engagements he'd been involved in and the way he structured the recount team, so that there was a few who sort of took a look at all facets of it, but there were definitely separations in federal, state appellate arguments in litigation matters, and then sort of specific issues like overseas military ballots and the role of the Florida legislature that were parceled out. So we had a lot of people doing specific tasks and then sort of an overall group doing general strategy.

- I wanna now go back to Zelda's book for a moment, Ben, in this quote from you, you write quote, our brief for the Supreme Court co-signed by current US R Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, noted quote, it is the will of the voters that is paramount. And in the absence of any evidence or even any allegation that fraud thwarted the voters', will the result of the election must stand, Ben, I'm not a lawyer, but is a, is another way of saying that, that the voters, the vote count stance, not this Florida Supreme Court deciding matters.

- Correct. I mean, it, it, what what really happened in the legal maneuvering was that the Democrats took their complaints to two separate dis Florida district courts. And the judges in those courts actually ruled for the Bush campaign. The Gore campaign then took those instances to the Florida Supreme Court. We felt they were ignoring precedent and rewriting Florida law and changing it in ways that helped the Gore campaign. And they were the cases, the two cases that went up to the United States Supreme and the United States Supreme Court upheld the trial judge's decisions in in both of those, in both of those cases.

- Right. Did the Bush legal team expect this outcome

- To win? Yeah, let, let, let me say that I, I think we all felt during the 36 days that we would win in about five minute increments and then turn around to thinking we're gonna lose and then come back to thinking we're gonna win. There were so many developments under such intense pressure in such a short amount of time with so much of the activity for the, the majority of days of the recount taking place in the counties under the, under the control of democratically elected officials, that we had many fears about what the outcomes should be, but did ultimately come back at the end of the day to thinking, well, we got more votes that were legitimately counted, so we're gonna win this.

- One thing I've always been curious about, Ben, is the Gore campaign's assistance on the December 10th deadline, which is the federal deadline for naming electors in 2000. The electoral college did meet until December 18th in 1960, Ben, so in theory, the Bush, the Gore campaign could have played this out a little further. No,

- Well, there is a safe harbor date.

- Yeah,

- That was December 12th that says any states slates that are, that are sent in or decided on by December 12th are presumptively valid. And that presumption has always been an important thing to strive for. So the December 12th date became really the crucible. I mean, we were, we thought that was the important date. We were, I think, a little bit surprised and not really disappointed when they set that firm a date, because I think you're right, it would've been unprecedented, but they might have been able to get a few more days out of it. Although, I have to say the media recounts after long after the election sort of showed that, that pretty much, no matter how you counted the votes that the Bush Janie ticket was still, still won.

- And meanwhile, both campaigns been have to figure out how to build a government in a very short period of time. So there must have been several operations going at the same time. You would have your legal campaign fighting this, the courts, meanwhile, your transition team, it can't actually hire people, but I guess it just has to sort of line everything up. And then once the case is settled, then you go. But boy, just a very short period of time before you hit the ground on January the 20th.

- Yeah, we had, I mean, there were, there were certainly people wearing two hats.

- Yeah. - We tried to keep it as separate as possible. I mean, the, the transition effort was headquartered in Austin with, with Governor Bush and Vice President Cheney in Austin, along with a lot of the teams. Some people went back and forth, but the recount operation and Secretary Baker were in were in Florida.

- So you heard about a little preambles beginning about how dominoes fall much differently, perhaps if Bush VG Gore goes the other way. Thank you for not rolling your eyes or making any snorted as some sounds. Maybe you agree or disagree with me on that. But you look back now, 25 years later, Ben, what is Bush v Gore's legacy?

- Bush VG Gore's legacy, I think is, is a couple of different things. I mean, there were some legal precedent that was set in the sense that equal protection is still important in, in our elections, interestingly enough, as a legal matter, the case did not set a whole lot of precedent. The circumstances were so unique. It is a case that cited far more frequently in the briefs of litigators and appellate lawyers than it is in actual judicial opinions. But I think what Bush versus Gore did signal is it, it showed a need for improvement in the mechanics of elections. In terms of the equipment we had. It led to the Help America Vote Act in 2002. And so there were, and there have been constant strides in election administration. But honestly, more than anything else, what I sort of marvel at looking back is that in 2000, both sides appreciated the institutions of government and the norms. And Al Gore in conceding as promptly as he did once it was decided in Florida, did one of the most patriotic, gracious and I think, important things that someone could do. It showed how the institutions of American government should work. I am certain that had Governor Bush fallen behind and not been officially certified as the winner, he would've done the same thing and conceded because that was important for the country and, and it proceeding. I'm not sure that would happen. Now, I think we've changed an, an awful lot, but I think you can look back at the 2000 election and be proud as Americans that the trans peaceful transition of power took place. There were no troops on the street. The country moved on, and in fact, really was unified the following September 11th when we needed to be unified the most.

- Right. But could have Gordon's campaign saved the country 36 days of drama by just conceding the day after the election.

- Oh, you know, I don't, I I think anytime you have an election that is as close as that with the stakes at hand, right? Every state's laws provides for recounts and

- Contests.

- And I think it is totally appropriate for any candidate to take advantage of what's permissible in the state law in terms of, of looking at REIT counts and contests. But you have to accept the results of that too.

- I'm curious be, since you've worked in so many campaigns, if there's any kind of standard within a campaign for accepting the results, or you just have to look at the numbers and decide when to go. You know, if you look at the presidential history, obviously there are arguments over the 2020 results. There's some people who quibbled 2024 and 2016 in 2004, we had a controversy over voting machines in Ohio, for example. But in 1960, going back to that, you know, there were rumors of funny votes in Texas and in Illinois, and I believe Republicans, I believe the GOP, the Republican National Committee actually looked into this. But Nixon made a decision pretty quick that no, we're not gonna contest this. So getting back to you being a campaign advisor, just how do you decide No, it's not worth fighting for.

- Well, I think you have to assemble the facts.

- Yeah.

- And really take a look at 'em and see what the situation is. And again, it comes down to the recount laws and contest laws in every state. But look, I, I think candidates have every right to, to exercise their rights right. Under those recount and contest laws. And I think it's important actually to go through that process in close elections to give people confidence that the right, the the correct winners are are in office. But again, once you go in through the procedures, you have to accept the results. Yeah. Even if you don't like them.

- And I think it's also been looking at the numbers. I worked for Pete Wilson and he's governor of California, you know, Pete Wilson very well too. And I remember sitting on a, a meeting with this campaign in 1994. He's running for reelection as governor and he had run twice before for the Senate. So they knew California cold. I remember sitting there, Ben, and they're going through each and every county in California and just ticking off what number they expect to get just based on what they think the turnout will be, but also based on his past historical performance. So I mentioned that's part of the calculation here. He looked at state like Florida and say, okay, we should get 54% in this county and 53% if the numbers look kind of funny, you're a little high or a little low. Maybe that's what kind of triggers your, your, your spider sense that something might be off.

- Yeah. And, and one thing that that was true in 2000 and is even more true now, is that you have a lot of people on the ground,

- Right.

- In polling locations, so that if something seems amiss, you can sort of calibrate that into your, into your calculations. Okay. But as I think 20 showed, you gotta have good evidence. And if you don't have good evidence, that's when you put the country through trauma and turmoil after election day that that is harmful.

- Well, two things that come outta the 2000 election, Ben, is we get some instant terminology, things like dimple chads when it comes to counting ballots. But you also get this mantra selected, not elected, which you hear when Republicans lose the popular will. But when the electoral vote, is this also a part of Bush v Gore's legacy? Because here we're Ben 25 years later, and at least in two of the three last presidential elections, there have been clause of legitimacy hanging over the sea hangout of the election driven by the losing side.

- Yeah. That gets into a, a sort of a deeper conversation about the polarization that we have in the country now and how fractious results are, and the way the, the communications infrastructure is changed so much so that there are more voices all competing with each other sometimes to get the, the most hyperbole into a newscast to get more, get more viewers. But, you know, at the end of the day, it is okay to go through the recount contest provision. And again, it's abiding by the results that matters.

- How easy, Ben, how likely is it We'll get a revisit to Bush VG Gore in the 2000 experience in the near future. Because the fact is American president elections are decided by 5, 6 7 swing states. These are mostly smaller states, not as large as Florida, but they're very close. And you can find yourself in another situation where it's just a couple hundred votes and that state determines the winner of the whole she shenanigans.

- Well, it's happened twice in our history, so it's kind of like a hundred year storm and there are a hundred year storms. So it is, it is entirely possible that it could happen again, but I certainly hope not. And I think the, the odds of that happening are, are really small. Just like they, just like they were in 2000.

- Okay. So I wanna segue back to a few things going on of the 2026 election coming up. And I also want to talk about your great work here at the Hoover Institution. So let me run a few 20, 26 items by you, Ben, and let's begin with this one. In 2026, there are appropriately enough, 26 secretaries of state races around the country, 13 Republican and 13 Democratic offices. And Ben, getting back to the idea swing states, four of these are very much in play in 2028, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin. Now, secretary of State's races are not at the top of the ticket. There are nowhere as sexy as a governor or senatorial race. If you will, tell us why Secretary of States matter.

- Well, first of all, Wisconsin Secretary of State has nothing to do with administering elections. So

- We're down to three. Okay, that's good. Down to three.

- So the secretaries of state play different roles in different states,

- Right.

- Because again, we practice a fierce federalism and exactly the, the authority of the Secretary of State does vary, but at the end of the day, they are the liaison for all the, the local county municipal people who put on elections. And so the Secretary of State plays a crucial role in some states in putting out manuals to further explain the law to clarify what what needs to be done by regulation. They do a lot of training of, of the local officials who actually do the casting counting and, and certification. And it is really providing sort of consistency throughout the state so that similar ballots are counted the same throughout the jurisdictions, thereby avoiding the sort of equal protection issues that were raised in in Florida.

- Okay. Second item, Ben, this has to do with Arizona. The first piece of legislation that'll be introduced to Arizona in 2026 is SCR 1 0 1 SCR 1 0 1 requires documented proof of citizenship before a ballot is issued. Early voting at 7:00 PM the Friday before the general election, Ben. And it requires government issue ID for in-person and early ballot voting.

- You know, all states, each state has a set of criteria in its laws that are designed to give people confidence in the election results. I'm kind of a firm believer that that one size does not fit all in elections

- And

- That states should do what is, what their elected representatives feel are proper. The description of that bill that, that you wrote is one that I think is gonna come up in any number of states. You know, we will see how the elected representatives end up voting on that legislation. It is worth noting that in Arizona the legislature is narrowly controlled by Republicans and the demo, the governor is a Democrat. So Arizona has a history of sort of a lot of bills getting through the legislature as, as votes with, with members of the legislature, knowing the governor's likely to override it and without much hope of being able to override the veto 'cause of the narrowness of, of the margins. Citizenship, which I think is the hot button item in, in, in that bill is of course a hotter item historically in Arizona than really almost any other state because of its 'cause of its border situation.

- Alright,

- Ben, let's,

- It'll pass the legislature be vetoed by the governor and not go into effect the voter ID is, you know, an issue that that 80% has 80% approval rating in polls. I think there is more and more academic research, including by some of our colleagues at at Hoover that shows that in fact, with the free ID options available to people, it doesn't really stop people from voting. So I think, you know, if they did that as a standalone bill, it'd be a pretty different situation.

- Now let's move next door, Ben to California. Wonderfully quirky California, which is both hitting gas break at the same time. So on the one hand you may have on next November's ballot, the California voter, the California voter ID initiative. Ben would require California voters to provide a government issued ID for in-person voting or provide the last four digits of a government ID for voting by mail. Meanwhile, on the left, Eric Swalwell, Ben, he's the mayor of congressman who's now running for governor. He thinks we should be voting by phone. His arguments that, hey, you shop on your phone, you do your banking on your phone, why can't you vote on your phone?

- Well the, the phone voting has sort of one big restraint. I think lots of people would like to see it happen 'cause it is so much easier. On the other hand, there are election security experts who say, we're not voting by phone, we're not voting on computers. Not safe enough yet. They are a nonpartisan group. They are security experts. And I think unless and until the security experts say it is, it is perfectly safe. It is, it is unlikely to be put in effect no matter sort of how idyllic it sounds.

- Yeah, no, no. Russian hackers take down cell towers on election day.

- Yeah, exactly. Or California because you have such a long period to vote. It's more than a just election day.

- Yeah. But you know, again, Ben, the voter ID initiative in California, this sounds like a clever way for Republicans out here to put Democrats on awkward position. Democrats in California historically hate this idea. If it polls well, you make them have to defend the idea.

- Yeah, I think that's a much more interesting partisan, partisan vote. It would certainly be a change for Republicans in California to have a statewide victory in much of anything. But if there is something that might succeed, I I think it would be voter id.

- Yeah. Well, Republicans out here, Ben, rarely get to play offense on the ballot, you saw it last November with the, the initiative which changed felony shoplifting in California. That was a good case of Republicans playing offense and the thing sailed through. So this might be the same. Let's now bend, let's move to the nation's capital. The Trump, DOJ has asked most states to hand over voter data rules. What's the illegal argument pro and con to this?

- Well, the con argument is that there are state provisions designed to protect individuals. Private safety and security says you can't turn over personal identifying information to anybody, let alone the federal government. The pro argument, the argument that the administration is making is that the voter roll is chock full of illegal voters, including, including non-citizens. And we need this information to be able to come up with a national database really to, to be able to screen people out. It's worth noting that there is a, is a opt-in group of states with actually very good technology that do bump each other's lists off of them. Republicans had some political problems with that group and so have pulled out and that's really weakened what's in place to be able to, to be able to keep voter rolls clean in our very mobile society where people move and you know, the, the fact that people die.

- Alright, Ben, in our final item, Heather honey, that's her actual name, Heather Honey, she is the election integrity officer, the Department of Hall Labor security. Yes. There's such an office, Ben, and she reportedly told a group of conservative activists back in March that the president could declare what she called a quote, national emergency to take control of local ion administration. She's reported saying the following quote, we have some additional powers that don't exist right now. We can take that these other steps without Congress and we can mandate that states do things and so on. Huh.

- Yeah. Sort of an sort of an interesting approach to things. It's kind of a, it's kind of a January 6th approach. It's a, it's a burn down the house attempt. You know, needless to say, if a president tries to take over an election or nullify a result by executive edict, it'll be a unprecedented situation with unprecedented litigation involved in that. I mean, it's all, you know, the, the background to that, or at least one piece of the background to that is that in the Doge cuts and consolidation of government, the cyber protection agencies that helped states sort of keep their systems cyber proof have all been cut back tremendously so that I know from my travels around the country that election officials in states are scrambling to be able to come up with what they feel are adequate cyber protections. So if you wanted a pretext for messing around with an election and executive action, there it is.

- Well Ben, so here we get into how the world views Donald Trump. So if one has a very extreme negative view of Donald Trump suffers from Trump derangement syndrome, you believe he's gonna cancel the 2020 election, you believe he's gonna send to the troops to somehow shut down elections in 2026. You see these grid things happening outta Washington, Ben, but there is an actual question here about what, if anything a president can do to get involved in local elections and try to change outcomes, if you will.

- Yeah, there really is, I mean, article one section four of the US Constitution leaves the time, place and manner of holding elections to the states,

- Right?

- So executive orders on things like dates, ballots should be received and whether they can have mail voting or not. And sort of the policy decisions that are made state by state would seem to be an overreach of executive authority in terms of federal elections. Congress can pass rules that deal with just federal elections on all these issues, but the constitution, as best I've been able to tell, is silent on giving the president authority over elections. So what I think Heather Honey is probably referring to are emergency powers and emergency war powers in case of a big enough sort of crisis to invoke that. And, and you know, it's a little hard to see what the pretextual reason would be to be able to, to do that.

- Okay. Let's go down to your work at Hoover Bend. It's mid-December elections and primaries are still months, almost a year away from the general election. You're back in DC you're stretching your legs, you're getting into election year shape, if you will. Tell me how you're preparing for 2026 in terms of this great issue of election integrity.

- Well, we knew do a number of things. One, we try and keep in touch and hold conferences with election officials, both the state and very local level to hear what the situation is on the ground, what they need to be able to provide a safe and secure election for people. Sort of what's troubling them and, and what's there. We also have a longer term project about our, our election system. And, and it's really sort of got a, a, a vision out in the future what should the American election system look like in the next 15, 20, 30 years. Because while the system I think produces accurate results and if they're not accurate in the initial count, they are after the recounts and contests. But we have a creaky system, needs modernization, needs more funding to be able to keep up to date. It has the 10,000 jurisdictions, which means there'll be inconsistencies. So there is room for improvement in the system and certainly as so many developments and so many technological areas come at us in the next few years, what should the election administration system look like in the future? So we're gathering people from across the political spectrum and those with great sort of technical and academic expertise to, to tackle that.

- And how would Ben Ginsburg improve American elections? Would you do something dramatic like spread out the presidential vote over several days? Or do you have any kind of bad monk ideas kicking around?

- Well these aren't so much mad monk ideas. I think these are number one, I'd, I'd take a hard look at the system where we have 10,000 separate jurisdictions And to see if we might consolidate some within states to be able to, to provide equal opportunities for, for all voters. You know, we do practice federalism. There is a strong belief in states rights. So I don't think you're gonna create a national system at all. But I think that, that within individual states, there can be improvements to, to increase consistency. I think there needs to be a hard look about what the actual voting equipment should look like in 30 years. I mean, you mentioned by voting, by phone and so far that seems a little too far over the horizon to me.

- Right.

- But would not be accurate to say that today's voting machines are on the cutting edge of technological advancement. Not at all clear what or if they'll be an impact from artificial intelligence on all of this, but it's certainly a, a frequently discussed system. Gotta make our voter registration roles better. You know, a lot of the, the mechanics need improvement. Taking into account what we don't take the time to really view in terms of, of technology.

- We do seem to be behind the curve on technology, Ben, in this regard. I'm in California, which means I get a ballot a month before the election, but it arrives in the mail and it's a paper ballot and I've got a market and put it back in the mail and sent it in. That just seems so non 21st century.

- Yes it does. And you know, there are the traditions we've had for a long time coming up against the fact we're in a cutting, cutting edge area of, of our development. And so that, I mean, those are the, the sorts of questions we wanna look at. Yeah, it does seem crazy that you've, you know, ballots are going by, by mail with the US Postal Service sometimes not being as reliable as, as we'd want. So there, there are all sorts of issues with that, that that need to be looked at outside of the current partisan maelstrom.

- Right. And then the other issue, Ben, is one of institutional competence, something which is great concern to our director, Condoleezza Rice. And that's having competence in the system and competence in the outcome in this regard. We're in a phase right now, Ben, where we have a lot of bad actors and bad actors who just do their best to undermine elections in this regard. They just wanna question how the votes are being recorded. They want to question how they're being counted. They wanna have you believe at all times. There are deep dark conspiracies going on. And then you couple that Ben with social media, which is just an outlet for rumor mongering. And so every election we get unsubstantiated reports of this ballot station's been closed and people have turned away, people from that one and so on and so forth. And it just, it just, it's a, it's a contagent ben plain and simple. It just undermines people's confidence of what's going on.

- Yeah, it really is. And that's part of what we, we are trying to deal with in both the, the immediate term problems or issues that election officials have and looking at it into the future. To tie this back to the Bush Gore recount in 2000, i I, I sort of get the shakes when I think about what it would be like to do a recount like that in today's world with cameras on every cell phone with the ability to stir things up on social media, whether accurate or not accurate, what DeepFakes might do in, in terms of, of, of a recount of ballots. So yes, it is, we are in much more sort of difficult times with the, with the, the changes to our media landscape.

- Well it's funny you mentioned that Ben, I was thinking the other day about the Lewinsky Clinton saga and he survives that ordeal, but I've gotta believe that in the information age he does, not just because the internet would've just gone insane on a daily basis about what was going on.

- Yeah. If it happened today, you would also have the me too sort of set of standards.

- Right. And then you go back to 1963 if you do a deep dive on YouTube, Ben, and look at media coverage in 1963 of the Kennedy assassination and how pri it is between black and white TV and they're talking to people on the telephone, on the airways and things like that. But in the information age with Twitter and x and truth, social and blue sky, all going crazy over what was going on in Dallas. My goodness.

- Yes. Many different sources of true facts and they can't all be right.

- Okay. Alright, Ben, so here, we're on the 25th anniversary tonight on Friday. You gonna celebrate the drink? How are you gonna, how do you gonna remember things?

- I I'm gonna remember things in sort of a, a silent fashion, just, just thinking back on, on, on all the memories there have been any number of commemorations over the past week. It is, it is great to be doing this on, on your podcast Bill. And it does bring back a whole rush of memories and really more than anything else, the terrific people who we all got to meet and interact with for those very compressed and exciting 36 days.

- Well Ben, this was a fun conversation. 'cause you know, I love politics and when you look at the calendar and events in American history, some dates stand out. I mean, December 7th, obviously, you know, September of December 11th, but December 12th doesn't really stand out. But again, I would argue that what happened on that day in 2000 had a lot of run term verification. Speaking of which, you heard my preamble about how things could change. Do you, do you buy into any of that or do you think I'm just having, having a little too much CREs?

- No, I think it's a fun exercise to go through to play the, the what if this happened

- Yeah.

- Scenarios. So yeah, if all that had happened, your, your scenarios were, were like good ones. And it's, it's, it's fun to do. But you know, who knows the great things about spinning out scenarios, what would've happened in history if is that you're always right.

- That's right. That's why we enjoy working at Think Tank as we get to do these things.

- Absolutely.

- Okay, Ben, fun conversation. Look forward to talking more about politics with you in 2026. Take care my friend.

- You too, bill, thanks for having me.

- You've been listening to matters of policy and politics of podcast devoted to the discussion of policy research from the Hoover Institution, as well as issues of local, national and geopolitical concern, including in this case a long pass national election. If you've been enjoying this podcast, please don't forget to rate, review, and subscribe to our show. And if you wouldn't mind, please spread the word, tell your friends about us. The Hoover Institution has Facebook, Instagram, and X feeds. Our X handle is at Hoover inst. If you wanna learn more about Ben Ginsburg, you'll find his biography at the hoover institutions website hoover.org. I mentioned Bob Zelnick book, which you'd look up on the 2000 recount. And also there's the HBO movie recount in which Ben Ginsburg is played by. Was it, was it Bob Balaban? George Cloy. I think Cloy. Well Pitt was busy, right? Did that movie get it right by the way?

- Well, you know, we won the recount, they won the movie. So I think it was great for, its sort of, its pace in capturing the excitement, eh, not really the history.

- Okay. Final note listeners. Well, you go look up Ben's bio in the Hoover website. You should also sign up for the Hoover daily report, which keeps you updated on what Ben and his Hoover colleagues are up to. And that's delivered to your inbox week days for the Hoover Institution. This is Bill Wayland. We'll be back soon. One last podcast before we bid due to 2025. In the spirit of New Year's resolutions, we're going to be talking about how to lead a more purposeful life. Na, until then, take care. Thanks again for listening.

- This podcast is a production of the Hoover Institution, where we generate and promote ideas advancing freedom. For more information about our work, to hear more of our podcasts or view our video content, please visit hoover.org.