Pelosi & Schumer’s Scheme to Take Over Elections

Today on Sekulow, Pelosi and Schumer are scheming to federalize all of our elections.

We'll talk about how they're doing it today on Sekulow. Right off the top, let me say, because we talked about yesterday, the Supreme Court scheduled an opinion day and there was a lot of speculation. Could it be the vaccine mandate case? Because that was heard. It was not. It was an opinion on a case that involved civil service in the military. I think it was 8 to 1. It was a regular schedule. It was a regular scheduled opinion day.

So not jockeying. And that was the only opinion today. So we are still awaiting the vaccine mandate case opinion from the Supreme Court.

Let me say a couple things about that because there's been so much speculation and the speculation has been running rampant on this. And that is, you know, the fact is there's no statement issued. The law went into effect on Monday. Companies around the country are making good faith attempts to apply. The Solicitor General redefined good faith by saying only, it's just mask requirement if you're not vaccinated. The testing didn't go into effect for a number of months. So I say that, that the guts of the bill, of the law, the most difficult compliance part for people would have been the testing because it's just not available, has been moved to February. So maybe that took some of the urgency off. But clearly we didn't have five votes for an administrative stay or we would have gotten one. Yeah, I mean, some of the urgency, but we're still talking about February. But it's just an administrative day, yeah. So I mean, so again, we're going to stay on it. And this is the kind of opinion that can come on a day that doesn't have a scheduled opinion.

Yeah. So the fact that the case was expedited, they expedited review in this case, which means that they jammed the briefing. We had to brief the case over about a course, both sides, over about 12 days. The court was back technically. The court was not back yet.

They especially sat. They heard the case. Our reply brief was due January 3rd. They argued January 7th. I mean, the expectation was that we were going to get a stay that afternoon because there was a lot of talk about administrative stays.

And what happened was in the process, we didn't get it. Now, that could just mean that they're coming up with a substantive decision on all of it. Either way, we don't know. I don't want to speculate.

I could tell you this, we don't have a decision as of now. That's right. So I want to start walking you through because I send the tease. They have come up with a new scheme. This is brand new, folks, of how to try and get the voter, the voting legislation through and their takeover.

And it really is. We go through the substance of now. Now we know some more about the substance of what would be in this. So they've gotten a vehicle that will allow them to at least avoid the first filibuster attempt, which is the motion to begin debate.

And here's how they started doing it. So Senate Majority Chuck Schumer, he laid all this out. What will happen now? The House has passed an unrelated NASA bill that was stripped of all of its language. So there's no language in the bill now?

Well, the new language is prepped in there. It's both the Freedom to Vote Act, which is the Manchin bill, and the Voting Rights Act, which is the John Lewis bill. But it's in this NASA package. The House has voted on that. It's already gone to the Senate because the House is utilizing an already used bill, the NASA measure, even though it has nothing to do with NASA. The prepackaged voting rights bill does not face a filibuster just to put it on the floor of the Senate. It eliminates the motion to proceed to launch the debate on the bills as well as the filibuster. So when you bounce back the Shell bill between the House and the Senate, it's considered a message between houses.

So it exempts the filibuster on the front end. So they can start this debate in the Senate now. I mean, right now, it's gone to the Senate. They can start the debate. They probably will very soon.

And there's reasons why. At a certain point, they still have a problem with the 60-vote threshold, the filibuster issue, the cloture issue, because it doesn't get around the motion to end debate and have a vote. The question will be, right now, is the timing on this and if there are enough votes by the Democrats. It will require all Democrat senators, so Manchin, Sinema, Mark Kelly out of Arizona, plus Kamala Harris to make the change in the rule and then to go through with this. But what people need to understand is the Senate, the House, stripped an existing bill involving NASA, took the language out of the NASA bill.

Understand this, took that language out, then came back and substituted the election law language. We're going to get into the particulars of that in order to get it to the floor. So this is called the Shell bill. It's called the Shell game. That's what they're doing here.

All right, we come back. We're going to get into then what is actually in this now that we know what they're doing. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life changing work.

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. All this heightened rhetoric around this voting rights legislation, this isn't even tracking with the American people about issues they care about right now. Joe Biden is below 40 percent approval ratings. He's in the 30s. And when you get to the specific issues that Americans care about the most, he's in the 30s there as well. He's in the 30s on the economy. He's in the 30s on the COVID response. He's in the 30s on foreign policy. So they're trying to use this to not bring America together behind Joe Biden, but to get the left of his party back behind, which is some of that 20 percent drop off from 50 percent. So if you can get back up into the 40s, because he's angering them too. So he's angering the far left. He's angering the conservative world, which is half the country as well. And so he's trying to, they are doing everything possible. He's got his buddies, Schumer and Pelosi, to try and do things.

I mean, just think about this. I want to say a minute quickly in Washington DC. Than the idea that a NASA bill, which again, I didn't know a lot about that specific bill, but we know that we need more funding for space. We know that that's an issue right now with our national security. I can't imagine they're real excited over at NASA that they've gotten their whole bill stripped down, something that may have been able to pass in a bipartisan way to be used for this hyper-partisan manner. Well, you know, they're going to be supporters and opponents of that bill as there are with every bill, Jordan. But can you imagine being the supporters of that NASA authority bills right now when it is now being used to take over elections, move state control of elections to the federal government? I mean, look, you and I both know how hard it is to move a bill through the legislative process. Imagine getting a bill through the United States Senate. It's sitting in the House, may even have the votes to pass in the House. They call it up, remove all of the language that you care about and put in a federal takeover of elections.

Just think about those supporters of the NASA bill for a moment. But Jordan, that is how insistent Washington DC Democrats are on taking over control of the elections. It doesn't even remove that 60-vote threshold, Jordan.

It just pushes it a couple days later. But that's how desperate they are to move it down the line. You know, the Quinnipiac poll today said that President Biden's approval rate is 33 percent. That means only a third of Americans approve of the job he's doing. But there's a group of people that have a lower approval rating than that, and that is Congress.

And part of the reason their approval rating is so low is they do things like this. They literally removed the text from the NASA bill, inserted the text on this election takeover, and are sending it back to the Senate. It's like sending a letter to someone, and you've got it addressed and stamped. And you take the letter out of the envelope, put another letter in, and yet try to convince people it's okay, it's the same letter. I sent the letter. I mean, or, Andy, as we used to call in law, I mean, this was true, you used to have, did you get a call from a client?

Do you have a shell corporation available? Which meant a corporation that's sitting on your shelf that's not being used for anything will stick it in there. Yeah, that's exactly what they're doing. They're taking a bill, stripping it of its substantive language, creating a shell, and then pouring into that shell this nonsense about federal takeover of election, and sending it over as a message, which gives it some sort of priority status on the Senate's agenda. And what it really is, Jay, is a federal power grab of the most egregious kind. It's a federal power grab of elections, and in my view, it is unconstitutional because the Constitution of the United States, if anyone cares, by the way, I do, says that the manner, means, and method of conducting elections shall be determined by the state legislatures. How are they going to get around that constitutional mandate, assuming this thing passes?

Would someone please tell me? Well, this bill would appoint Merrick Garland, or whoever the Attorney General into, as an unelected, unaccountable elections are, with the power to change state election laws. I mean, that's part of this bill. Yes, I mean, so we're going to go through some of the specifics now because we have them. So remember yesterday we were talking about, you know, what is actually going to be in this?

They're talking about, you know, comparing people to Jefferson Davis, Paul Conner, you know, the list went on, and George Wallace. When Biden made that speech, we didn't even know what text of what bills he was talking about yet, because there's been a lot of confusion about what is actually in this. Now we know what is going to be there, but I want everyone to understand the hoops they're jumping through, stripping out the NASA language so that they can, just so they can get through one of the usually required filibusters to begin debate. It does not, I want to make it clear, they would still have to either change the filibuster rule at the end, so fail to get the 60 votes to end debate, and then have a vote. The timeline on this?

Very quick. We're looking at potentially tonight, these moves taking place, having a day or two in between. So Sunday, because you've got it, the rules do require this 24-hour period or 48-hour period. So trying to do it before the Martin Luther King holiday and using that as the reason why. But as we go through the specifics, again, Merrick Garland being the election czar, national clearance for all existing voter ID laws. That means it doesn't matter if you're in a southern state, Midwest state, a state that's had no issues ever with racial issues or wasn't deemed under the Voting Rights Act to be a state of concern. If you've got it on the books now, not even something new, but on the books now, has to go through federal preclearance. Maintaining a good voter list.

This is so unique. There's restrictions on state efforts to work together with other states to dedupe their list. They actually want to keep more people on voter lists in different places. That's so you can commit fraud.

I mean, that's the only reason you would support that. Okay, so Thanh, let me ask you this, because I look at the situation and say, how in the world could they possibly actually pull this on the American people? They're doing it by sleight of hand, but the substance of the bill is still horrible.

Worse. Bill, Jay, is literally, it's a federal takeover of elections, plain and simple. I mean, look, they changed the bill name from S-1, the For the People Act, but now it's numbered S2747, the Freedom to Vote Act, and they put Joe Manchin's name on it. Jay, they did very, very little to change the substance of this. The federal government would still be in charge of everything from voter registration, to voter location, to voter hours, to when those polls had to be opened.

Ballot box security. Redistricting would even be under the purview of the federal government now, Jay. I'm telling you, this is as sweeping as H-R-1 was.

They just changed the name and tried to make it a little bit more palatable. And you're right, Jay, I mean, it's a sleight of hand, but the only thing they did with that sleight of hand is they got the bill onto the Senate floor. There will still have to be a vote on whether or not they're going to change the filibuster to actually get it over the line.

Interestingly, Jay, it looks like Senator Sinema is on her way to the floor of the Senate right now, so we might learn a little bit more about where she stands and what the path forward is. Yeah, really, you're talking about in a situation like this, Andy, the differential of getting this through or not, it was a couple of votes. Democratic votes, I might add.

Well, that's all it is, Jay. I mean, it's Manchin and Sinema and maybe Kelly, the other senator from Arizona, but it's that sleight. Those are the people that are going to make the difference as to whether or not we have federal election control or whether we do it on the constitutional way, and that is the state's control, the time's method and manner of elections. This is fundamental constitutional law, Jay. Where are they going with this except a Democratic power grab?

Once they get control of elections put into the hands of the federal government, then you've got Democrats in control forever. This is more than a power grab. This is taking the power right from the constitutional perspective, right from the state. Yeah, I mean, get this provision. So this provision, it's two different bills that they're combining here, the John Lewis bill, but also Manchin's bill.

This is from the John Lewis bill, the language that would be in there. They already want to make it harder to maintain good voter lists, which is absurd, but they subject every state to preclearance on any laws that are considered voter integrity laws. So those would all have to be approved by bureaucrats in Washington, DC. And let me tell you who wouldn't be getting approved, any red state, because almost 98% of bureaucrats in Washington, DC are Democrats.

We know this because we can look at open secrets and you can see their political contributions and see where they work. So if you're in a red state and you want to put in a voter integrity law, even though states like Georgia with their new laws have more early voting than New York or Delaware, easier early voting, easier to request a ballot at home, New York and Delaware aren't going to have problems with this. It's going to be Georgia and Tennessee and South Carolina and states across the country, Arizona, who have said, we want to put integrity back into the system. We don't want the repeat of 2020. Now that I have to go through preclearance by bureaucrats in Washington, DC, there's nothing worse than having to go through preclearance by Democrats in Washington, DC. We're not done going through what's in here.

This is just some of the tip of the iceberg. We only got a minute here, Wes, but I think one of the most dangerous aspects of this is the fact that it literally takes the power out of the state governments, which is set by the Constitution, and the Congress thinks they could just ignore that provision of the Constitution and move this over. Article 1 Section 4 of the Constitution, the Elections Clause, says the time, manner, and place of voting is something the states control. They're totally ignoring that. What this bill would do is disembowel voting in America as we know it. It is a complete takeover of voting, even at the local level, by your federal government. And they're doing this because they're worried about what is going to happen in about nine months when it is likely, no one can guarantee it, but likely that the Republicans are going to regain the House and may well regain the Senate.

Right. I mean, this is the issue. This is completely partisan, this move. They're trying to reinvigorate a base in their party in midterm elections, which they know they're about to lose the House and potentially the Senate. And so they weren't able to get billed back better through yet, so they've switched to something else, which, by the way, is not in American people's top issues.

They don't see this as like a top issue because their states handle these issues, not the federal government. I'd like to know what our audience thinks. There's worse in here. We'll take your calls about it. 1-800-684-3110.

And there's some action items you can take when you get back from this break that will let you know what to do. 1-800-684-3110 to talk to us on air. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, playing parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena.

And we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life changing work.

Become a member today, ACLJ.org. We'll get the sound for everybody. So Senator Sinema, who is one of the key votes here for Schumer. I mean, now this is the Schumer – This is really interesting.

This has already gotten out of the house, by the way, folks. So this is now all up to the Senate, and they are on a very rushed timeline. They're on a timeline to try and get this done before Monday's Martin Luther King holiday.

So I am encouraging you – I told you I'd give you an action item right now. We're going to take your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. But you need to call the offices of Senator Sinema, Senator Kelly, both from Arizona, and Senator Manchin in West Virginia. You call the Capitol switchboard.

We'll put the graphic up on the screen. The number is 202-224-3121. You ask to speak to that individual senator's office. Remember, these three Democrat senators have been on our side of this.

So don't go in nasty with them. Say that you support their view on the filibuster, that's an important part of the Senate, to remain strong and to not vote to federalize the elections. So just that simple message. Remain strong. Don't buckle on your support of the filibuster. Okay, this is a big debate.

I want to get the sounds. I actually want to hear it myself of what you said, but I want to go to Than Bennett on this. So, Than, if Senator Sinema is taking the position that she's not going to vote to break the filibuster, what does that do to their analysis? Well, it would kill the ability to move this legislation at this point in time, Jay.

I'm actually watching the subtitles right now, so I'll wait to hear it as well. She did say there might be some reform she would support, but maybe she still supports the 60-vote threshold. We'll look at that, but let's play out the hypothetical. If she is not willing to go along with Leader Schumer and nuking the filibuster, what that would mean is even though they're on the bill now, Jay, and Senator Schumer might try to file cloture today and then he could tee up that vote on Saturday, say it's Saturday, cloture to end debate would fail. Then he would try to nuke the filibuster, and without Senator Sinema's vote, here's the key point, without her vote, he can't change Senate precedent, and he would still have to get 60 votes to end debate.

It would end right there, Jay. But you would think that if they knew they were going to lose, why would they take the risk of doing this, Than? The honest opinion here, I think Leader Schumer thinks that he has to have this vote to fend off his left flank against a primary from AOC. I mean, that sounds very political, Jay, but that really does look like the motivation to me. No, no, I think you're 100% right. I think, Andy, what's happened here is the left wing of the Democratic Party, the progressive wing of the party, has gotten so aggressive that Schumer, who is a tactician, okay, he's a smart guy, we don't agree with a lot of policies, obviously, but he would not be taking this risk if he was not getting pressed to do it. You don't go into something knowing you don't, now, maybe this is all becoming now and they're all playing it close to the best, I don't know, but to me, it seems like that's a heck of a risk.

Andy? The Senate, for a long time, arose to be the Democratic leader. A few years ago, he was in favor of keeping the filibuster and castigated Republicans who wanted to do away with it, so he's been all over the place. But the reality is that he is, as you say, a tactician, he's a smart guy, he understands how you make legislation, and he realizes that the left part of his party is pressing him with incredible, incredible urgency to do this, and he's yielding and capitulating to it.

And I think what fans said is right, he's got the primary opposition that Sandy Cortez may run against him in New York and may beat him in the primary. So he's saying, I'm going to suck up to the left, to the progressives, and I'm going to do this even though it's a nosedive to oblivion, because Senator Sinema and Manchin may not go along with him. We talked about the idea where Joe Biden has been on this, because remember, in Atlanta, he was saying, now if you don't support his view on this, you're a racist leader.

You're either a traitor to your country, you're Jefferson Davis, you are Bull Connor, I mean, bullying kids out of schools and desegregation, you are George Wallace leading a political party, leaving the Democrat party to join a political party of just being a white supremacist. And made all these comparisons like that, except for, listen to Joe Biden, listen to this speech by Tom Cotton, it was interesting, I like that he did this. So Senator Cotton got on the Senate floor, he gave a speech, and it ends with a very careful point by 24. Constitutional scholars will tell us that the reason we have these rules in the Senate, unlimited debate, two-thirds to change the rules, the idea that 60 have to close off debate is embodied in the spirit and rule of the Constitution.

The bottom line is very simple. The ideologues in the Senate want to turn the founding fathers, what the founding fathers called the cooling saucer of democracy into a rubber stamp of dictatorship. Those are powerful words, but they're not mine. Every word of my speech today was originally spoken by our esteemed colleague, the senior senator from New York, Chuck Schumer. Folks, what we're playing for you and the evidence we're laying out is just the fact that this is politics, political theater going on right now. I think Tom Cotton was brilliant in doing that, quoting all that and saving it to the end, and by the way, that was Chuck Schumer who said that. Yeah, now here's Senator Sinema, the remarks that we were discussing, so we can all take a listen.

Let's play it. And while I continue to support these bills, I will not support separate actions that worsen the underlying disease of division infecting our country. The debate over the Senate 60-vote threshold shines a light on our broader challenges.

There's no need for me to restate my longstanding support for the 60-vote threshold to pass legislation. I mean, Wes, that's a very strong statement of, you know, even there's provisions of the bill that she supports, but there's also wiggling room in there. Yeah, I mean, what is the division part? I mean, that's what I'm – is the division over – she doesn't want to cause more division by getting rid of the filibuster, or is it the division because of the voting rights? I mean – I think it's – I think – There was a lot of weird gobbledygook at the beginning of that. Yeah. It ended okay. But there was this – I think the division – We know her position on the filibuster, but she didn't restate it, and I don't know.

I just – Yeah. I think the division maybe that she's referring to, though, is that, you know, they do not have a mandate in the Senate. It's a divided Senate.

And I think whenever you try to pass massive legislation that fundamentally changes voting in America, and you don't have a mandate, you don't really have a majority except for the vice President, that is divisive. And I like to think perhaps that's what she's talking about. And it sounds like she is not going to vote to it.

Yes, but I hope to. But, Fan, what's your read on it? I'd say two things. One, if she says she's still in favor of the 60-vote threshold, Jay, it looks like she's not in favor of moving to a talking filibuster. That would be a big blow to Democrats. She did say she would support the underlying bills, but that vote never even occurs until after the filibuster vote.

So, look, I agree with you. It was a little weak, but she's got to vote for that before she could ever vote for the bill. But she would support the underlying provisions of the bill? By the way, here's part of the Manchin part of this bill. You think Joe Manchin's some moderate?

Take a listen. This is part of what he wants in the language. And it's to protect people like him who are wishy-washy, I don't know, impossible to predict. The Manchin bill, which is in this language, drastically limits free speech, imposes vague standards that disadvantage all groups who wish to advocate on behalf of legislative issues. So issue advocacy, which is what he hates the most, because that actually tells his constituents what he's doing in Washington, D.C., and requires them to disclose the names of donors who donated above a certain threshold. And Andy, we only have 30 seconds, totally violates the constitutional principles going all the way back to the NAACP cases.

That's exactly right. How do they get around the Constitution? I don't know.

I don't. I don't see how they can. I'm going to tell you something.

I only got 13 seconds here. There's a Supreme Court case that just ruled on this and said you can't do that. But they don't care. We got more to talk about. A lot more to talk about when we come back. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life changing work. Become a member today.

ACLJ.org. I'm talking about freedom. I'm talking about freedom.

We will fight for the right to live in freedom. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, welcome back to Sekulow. We're going to start taking your calls on this 1-800-684-3110. If you're just joining us, I'm not going to walk you through 100% again because that was a lot of details for our audience.

If you missed it, you can go back to the show later today. So the House has already moved through a new shell bill. It was a NASA bill that had been going back and forth between the House and the Senate. They stripped all of the NASA language out, and they inserted two laws.

The voting—HR4, the Voting Rights Act, which is the John Lewis bill, and S2747, which is Joe Manchin's Freedom to Vote Act. What this does, this legislative move, it allows them to get around the first potential filibuster, which is to even open debate. So they don't have to do that now. So the Senate could open debate tonight and then have a vote on this as early as Saturday.

This is how quick the timeline is moving. Now on that second vote, you have to end debate. You would still have to get to the 60-vote threshold, and if that fails, then you'd have to have the votes to change the rules to abolish that filibuster. They don't have 60 votes.

So we know, if this goes on this track, the only way this moves forward legislatively to Joe Biden's desk is if Chuck Schumer can convince Sinema, Kelly, and of course Joe Manchin to go along with abolishing the filibuster to some extent. We don't know if it will just be for voting rights legislation. We don't know if it will just be deemed for, quote, they've used the word important. That's somehow defined, and all legislation's not important. But it's moved through the House to the Senate.

We've started to go through some of the details. I just went through one that requires donor disclosure for issue advocacy groups. Not political donations to candidates.

Issue advocacy. You know why Joe Manchin wants that? That's in his bill? Because that's what gets him all the time in West Virginia. People can actually hold him to account because they know what he's doing. You're allowed to put these ads.

I was just in West Virginia. That's why I was out on Monday with their state auditor, and I had the local TV on the background. He runs a massive amount of ads trying to explain what he's doing in Washington. What he wants to prevent is you from being able to run an ad, telling people what he is doing, and trying to scare away your donors so you can't do that.

I can't stand those provisions. What really upsets me always about the left is that you want to silence speech. What are you so afraid of in an issue advocacy ad? That people are going to tell the truth about how you're voting Joe Manchin? Yes, that's what he's afraid of, is ultimately one day not being able to get reelected in West Virginia.

But there's other here. Mandated voter registration, same-day voter registration, which some states may be able to do, some already do. Some are so big that that could be a bureaucratic nightmare. Mandating where the early voting locations are in their hours. This takes all of… From the federal government, from the states to the federal government, understand what they're doing. The states control this under the Constitution.

Yeah, I mean this was great. One of the examples Chuck Schumer keeps using is a rural county in Georgia, right? So Mitch McConnell gave a speech yesterday, because I guess Schumer didn't do his research, that county during COVID just went to one location.

And he said, see this disadvantaged people in the Democratic Party. It's a 70% Republican county. If they were worried about, and remember Donald Trump lost Georgia.

Right. Why are the Democrats using that? That's the one county they could point to? Because they're afraid they're about to lose Georgia. They're afraid that Herschel Walker could win the United States Senate.

But it was a short-term game. Yeah. And that's why I think that, again, it's all these ideas.

You have to always go to the second step with them in any rhetoric you hear. This is great. We're playing right now, Andy, three-dimensional chess. It really is. It's three-dimensional chess. Jay, I feel like I'm in the Middle East. I feel like I'm in Israel negotiating between the Palestinians, the Jordanians, and the Israelis.

Because it's nine-dimensional rather than three-dimensional. But the point of the matter still rests with me, at least, in where is the constitutionality of this legislation lie? And how does it comport with the Constitution, which Wes quoted and which I repeat?

The manner, means, and method of elections shall be left to the competence of the state legislatures. How do you get around that by a piece of legislation? Folks, I want you to take action on this. You can give us a phone call, 1-800-684-3110. But call those three senators, Sinema, Kelly, and Manchin. Nicely. This is the Capitol switchboard.

Be nice. Because right now, we think they're on our side. 202-224-3121. Let's fill up those phone lines. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work.

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, a play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Alright, welcome back to Secula. We are taking your phone calls as well on this.

1-800-684-3110. We've asked you to light up those lines for those three U.S. Senators that are Democrats who have said they support the filibuster. They don't want to change that.

That's Senators Sinema and Kelly from Arizona and then Senator Manchin of West Virginia. To reach each of their offices, positive message, folks. Positive message. They're on our side right now. So we don't want to lose them by inundating them with angry calls. Positive calls.

We stand with you. Here's the number. 202-224-3121. Then you ask to tell the Capitol operator which Senate office you'd like to be connected to. So you can make up to three calls today quickly to Senators Sinema, Kelly, and Manchin. Yeah, and Will Haines, our producer, just said maybe add Senator Tester to that too.

Yeah, I think that's fine. We're going to take a call. Before we do, Than, for people that are going to make this call, how important is this and what is the tone of that phone call should it sound like?

Yeah, I think it needs to be what Jordan said. Thanking them for where they've been on this. Reiterating that they agree this is as important as they feel that it is. And that they know it's a tough vote and they appreciate the fact that they're heading towards it.

Jay, maybe the one other thing I would just put in the back of people's minds here. No matter what Leader Schumer says on this, that this might be a special carve out for certain legislation, I think people need to understand this very clearly. There aren't going to be two sets of rules for the different parties. I have always supported the filibuster, Jay. Not everybody agrees with me on this, but here's what nobody should support.

One party being subject to a filibuster and the other party not being subject to a filibuster. So no matter what Leader Schumer says this time, if this is enacted, these senators need to understand that every single piece of legislation that comes forward under Republican or Democrat leadership is not going to have a legislative filibuster. Is that something they want?

I think probably not. No, but the reality is here, and I think this is what you need to understand. This bill has really bad language in it. I mean, West just pointed out one that's in the Fair Voting Act, or whatever they're calling it now, Freedom to Vote Act. I mean, but this is ridiculous.

Look at what this does. Take a listen to what West has got to say on this, because folks, this tells you how bad this is. Well, remember all the chaos and the glitches of the last election? Those same chaos and glitches not only will happen next time if this passes, those chaos and glitches will be embedded into federal law. One of those things that troubles me, Jay, is that they are required to count votes up to seven days past election day. Keep in mind, they're doing a mass mailing of votes again under this law. They have to count them up to seven days past election day, but no postmark is required so that your local election officials will not know when the ballot was mailed or from where it came. And that's part of the law.

Andy, think about, I mean, just think about that one for a moment. How do you have voter integrity when you can't even determine when the vote was mailed? Well, you don't.

You don't have it. And that's the idea here. The idea on the part of the Democrats is an unprincipled power grab of federal elections. Forget voter integrity. They mischaracterized the Georgia bill completely as saying that it was contrary to voter integrity, and it extended the dates beyond what New York, for early voting beyond what New York and Delaware have. Is that, does that somehow suppress the vote? So it's a mischaracterization of things and to achieve a goal.

And that's what we have to keep focusing in mind. This is a federal democratically backed power grab of United States elections throughout the country. It is equating New Jersey with Arizona, Washington State with Georgia, Maine with Nevada. That's not the case. Each state is a sovereign.

The Constitution says it, and the Constitution rules ultimately, no matter what Leader Schumer says. Let's go to the phones. Pauline Collin from North Carolina, online too. Hey, Pauline, welcome to Sekulow.

You're on the air. Thank you. You have all said that this is unconstitutional, as any of us can look it up for ourselves. So God forbid that this should pass.

What's the recourse? There'll be legal challenges by these states who will say this preclearance is unconstitutional, like you said. And we represent a lot of states. There's been some support at the Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional. In fact, the Supreme Court took a provision of the Voting Rights Act on preclearance and on redistricting, and election law changes in these states that were of particular concern during the civil rights movement, mostly southern states. And they said years ago, the court said that's no longer needed now.

We're past that. Look at who's in charge of those states. Look who's running those states. So we don't have to have preclearance. That doesn't prevent, by the way, the Department of Justice for going in after the law is passed, which they have done in Georgia and other states, and filing a lawsuit saying it violates the Voting Rights Act and other provisions. So it would mean a number of complicated legal battles between the midterm elections and the next Presidential election, if this was to pass.

Yeah, and I think, you know, when you look at the legal – That's the if. Yeah, okay, and of course there's a lot of legal issues that could be – when you impact voting, you're going to the core of constitutional issues. And I think the idea here, Andy, that the states would be removed from the process by legislation when the Constitution itself says it is the states that have that authority under the election clause, and we know the election clause here at the ACLJ, the idea that that would now be off limits because the state, the federal government would have usurped it, and that the sitting Attorney General, now Merrick Gartland, whoever it would be, would be this, you know, election czar, is really outrageous because it's exactly the opposite of what the founders had intended and actually wrote.

Well, Jay, that's right. This is after all, and it's a good idea to look at the name of the country, it's the United States of America. The United States of America, it's not the Federal Republic of America, the states have sovereignties.

The Constitution enshrines those sovereignties by saying that the method and manner of elections are vested in the state legislatures. Where are you going with this bill now that takes that away and puts the power in a federal power czar? God forbid that it's Merrick Gartland, who shouldn't be on the Supreme Court, much less Attorney General of the United States, and takes and strips the states away of that authority. What are the states' role at that point?

What are we then? What are we, just a loose federation of colonies again? Have we just taken that away from the state authorities? I don't think that that's what the founders intended. I know that's not what the founders intended. This is their key. I mean, Scott on YouTube wrote in, why would you need to take over the elections?

Because your message isn't winning with the American people. It's absolutely right. Every, under their provision, every change in voter rules, in every state in the country, this is broader than the Voting Rights Act legislation, which was to correct wrongs like Jim Crow laws. This is every state, from the bluest of blue to the reddest of red, from the southeast to the northeast and all across the country.

Hawaii is included too, and Alaska. Every rule has to get pre-cleared. Every rule change has to get pre-cleared by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. whose rules won't be cleared.

Red states. And that won't matter if it's a Republican President after this, or a Democrat, because the bureaucracy is Democratic. We know it. And it always has been. It always has been. You can look it up, and I'm not slamming them by that.

You look up their political contributions, it's to the dems. So, who's going to have problems getting their new rules through, even if they're good rules? Even if they're the same rule as New York has, Georgia, and Tennessee, and Arizona, and the Midwestern states.

In North Carolina. I mean, you can go through. It's not hard to figure out. I mean, everybody's exactly right on this. They're about to face losing. Nancy Pelosi will never be Speaker of the House again in her life. Yes, that's over with. Okay, so she's done. And then Chuck Schumer's looking at never being in a leadership in his life again.

Never being the top leader. He's barely holding onto it right now, just because Kamala Harris spoke. So again, it feels like, so I think the pressure on Sinema, the pressure on Mark Kelly, the pressure on Tester and Manchin is going to be very intense in these next 48 hours stand, which is why we've encouraged people to call their offices and encouraged them to stand with their position. Yeah, Jordan, I mean, just to describe this, we say this a lot on this show that you don't call votes in the House or the Senate unless you know you have the votes. They're not doing that here, Jordan. They're calling the votes, even though they have active members that they need to support the measure are saying they oppose it. They have done it.

They've put all of the pressure on them. And Jordan, I would just underscore one of the things you said. You said look at the campaign contributions of federal bureaucrats who would be in charge of this. It's a great point. By the way, I don't want a Republican bureaucrat making these decisions either.

But think about this, Jordan. If I give $200 to a candidate in any race across the country, federal taxpayers have to then contribute $1,200 to that same campaign candidate. So it means everybody listening here is going to be funding the campaigns of Bernie Sanders and AOC. Is that what we want?

I sure don't think so. Whether you want to or not, you take election integrity. The most important thing about democracy in America is election integrity.

And I've read through this legislation just like you all have. It totally takes away from all election integrity. Elections are supposed to be the way our laws are set up. It's easy to vote and hard to cheat. This does exactly the opposite.

It makes it easy to vote, but it makes it extremely easy to cheat. Wes has a blog up. It should be up shortly.

If it's not up yet, it is up now. It says a government takeover of your right to vote what you need to know. That's available at ACLJ.org. Again, Wes Smith's latest blog on our website.

A lot of content there at ACLJ.org. We'll also get that on our social media platforms as well. A government takeover of your right to vote what you need to. We'll talk a little bit about that when we come back. We've got a great bite from Chuck Schumer. We're going to play. We're going to take your calls too at 800-684-3110.

That's right. Again, that capital switchboard number if you want to get engaged and give a call of support right now to Senators Sinema, Tester, Kelly, and Manchin. You call the same number and they'll connect you to their office.

It's 202-224-3121. Positive message. Stay strong on your support of the filibuster.

Keeps the Senate different from the House. Just give them that message of support. Be right back. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena.

And we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work.

Become a member today, ACLJ.org. We'll go back to the phones. 1-800-684-3110 to talk to us on air. That's 1-800-684-3110. Phyllis in Louisiana on Line 3. Hey, Phyllis, welcome to Sekulow.

You're on the air. I just want to thank those senators, those Democratic senators that are fighting for the American voice and fighting against the destruction of the filibuster and just the voting rights are disgusting that the feds are trying to pass. We are the people. And in 2022, our voice will be heard at the end of the year. So I just want them to stay strong. We're all behind them. Yeah, I think that, you know, you're absolutely right.

You give credit where credit is due. Listen, I don't agree with Senator Sinema. She likes this legislation.

We've walked through how bad it is. But her position that she hasn't folded yet to the pressure of the Democratic Party, that Joe Manchin has not folded yet, even though this is his own legislation, I mean, what a tricky move there. He put his own legislation out. He can vote for it.

It then doesn't pass. So he still voted for the legislation he believes in, which I think is horrendous. Like he always wants to get voter ID, donor disclosure.

He's a big proponent of that because he doesn't like people knowing about the actual issues in his home state. But again, you've got to give him credit because they've got a machine of pressure up against them. And that machine is going to turn on as much pressure as possible because how many fit legislative failures can Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi rack up?

That's what they'd be doing yet again on this if they are not able to be successful. Let's go to Jimmy in New Hampshire on Line 1. Hey, Jimmy.

Yeah, how you doing? I have a quick question. I'm reading from Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution. It does give the right for the states to regular election, but it says, but Congress may at any time by law make all to such regulations except in a matter of choosing senators. And my second point is that voter ID was held up by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Crawford versus Marion County, the Indiana voter ID law. Yeah, I mean voter ID.

I don't know. Again, they are trying to say that if you have new voter ID, you have to go through us. I think the difference between what Article 1, Section 4 is saying about regulations and then this preclearance has where the Supreme Court has stepped in and said it is one thing to play a role, but if the states are playing the role to require them all to get pre cleared by the federal government has been a no by the Supreme Court. They've not interpreted that to be brought power. No, they've not interpreted to mean the states might if they want to, Andy, regulate time, place and manner of elections, and then the federal government can come in and Congress can come in and say, oh, we don't like that.

We're going to overturn it. It's never been interpreted that way. It's never been interpreted that way.

And it's not. And I hope the Supreme Court, if it ultimately gets there, will not interpret it that way and shouldn't interpret it that way. What do we have states for? Because states are the ultimate repositories of the sovereignty. What is not given to the federal government is reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment. Remember, the government of the United, the central government is a government of enumerated, limited powers. The sovereignty rests with the people in the states. What we give up, we give up only grudgingly to the central government, and we have retained the power to determine our elections in the states.

That's why this is fundamentally contrary to the founders of our republic and their ideal of what America is. Wes Smith, I said, has an article up. It says a government takeover of your right to vote what you need to know. And I just asked Wes to give us a really condensed version.

It's available at ACLJ.org. But there's some interesting information here, folks. You need to know why we're on this so aggressively. Yeah, it's very, very important. And in the blog that's on our website, I talk about the differences between some of the state laws that have passed recently that have been roundly condemned by President Biden and others, and why those laws really increase voting opportunity and preserve the integrity of the vote itself, but also go through the proposed federal laws and talk about some of the things we've talked about today.

Why they are not legal, of course, constitutionally, but also the rules that they make that will permanently put into federal law all of the chaos and things from the last election. I also talk a little bit in the article about the hyperbole and exaggeration that's going on as Democrat politicians try to convince people that this is the right thing to do when they know it's not the right thing to do. Jordan, isn't part of this, I mean, I'll take it back to your home state, where you were born, Georgia. Isn't this now, didn't he go to Georgia yesterday?

Yeah. Didn't he, aren't they making these statements because they now think, A, the Congress is going to flip Democratic, but that Georgia may well have a Republican senator again. Right, and then that plays into them losing power. Chuck Schumer is pretty old.

He probably won't get power back in his lifetime. They've seen a wave of retirements from older members of the Congress and Democrats in the House, 23. A lot of them are doing that because they've been out of power before, they've been in power, and they don't want to go through that again, just being in the minority party. So 23 already have retired. Some are, by the way, in safe Democrat seats.

They just don't want to go through it again. So the House, Nancy Pelosi, if Republicans take back the House, which they are on track to do, I mean, things can change between them, but on track to do, she will never be Speaker of the House again. I mean, she's getting very old. So these older leaders in Congress are seeing the writing on the wall for their careers. And I think this is the last, and listen, Joe Biden is part of that group, and this is a last-ditch effort to why they're throwing out all of their previously held positions on the filibuster.

We played Chuck Schumer's bite. They're calling you Bull Connor and George Wallace. I mean, are they calling Tim Scott George Wallace? Yeah, African American Senator from South Carolina. Or is Kristen Sinema from Arizona, who's bisexual, is she George Wallace?

I mean, give me a break. Well, that's what they're doing, but this is what Senator Chuck Schumer said about this on the floor speech in 2017 about the importance of the filibuster. The legislative filibuster, which is the most important distinction between the Senate and the House. Without the 60-vote threshold for legislation, the Senate becomes a majoritarian institution like the House, much more subject to the winds of short-term electoral change. No senator would like to see this happen, so let's find a way to further protect the 60-vote rule for legislation. Except when your legislation and your parties in power is about to go nowhere in the United States Senate, so let's change it. Yeah, so this is why I think, you know, as we, in the broadcast today, I really encourage people to make those phone calls, because this is not like two weeks.

This is days. I mean, they've got to take action. Really, tonight, fan, we would see the action to start this process. Yeah, you'd see Leader Schumer likely file cloture, and then there'd be an intervening day tomorrow and a vote Saturday night. So, Jordan, I would just say, I mean, look, the pressure on these senators over the next 48 hours, it's going to be intense.

You hear a lot of good things today, but Jordan, we've seen this before. You're going to go through 48 hours of senators pressuring you, constituents pressuring you, grassroots activists pressuring you. Jordan, it'll be a very different thing to go down to the floor of the Senate and cast a vote that backs up these words. I hope they do it, and that's why I encourage people to continue and call.

Let them know they're not alone. We stand behind them. That they would appoint the Attorney General, as the elections are, tells you what this is all about. They think they're going to lose power in the midterm elections, which they are in the House.

And they want to be able to explain it away as racist. Yeah, and they're going to say, you know, all the screaming about... A white majority leader and a white Speaker of the House. Right, and they're going to say, and this is the irony of all this, they're going to say election fraud, which they're having these investigations in Washington now saying you can't say that. Stacey Abrams still says that about her first election. She hasn't conceded. And they're already building that case.

Andy, you've got 20 seconds here. They're already building that case in your home state of Georgia right now, as you're sitting there. Yeah, they absolutely are, but they're going to lose that case because the people of the United States will not tolerate it. I think Andy's right.

I don't think that that's why... Read Wes Sussman's blog on ACLJ.org, a great way for you to be engaged. And it's entitled, As a Government Take Over Your Right to Vote What You Need to Know. ACLJ.org, get that on our social media platforms as well, and support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today. ACLJ.org.