BREAKING: Democrats Vote to Take Over Elections

Breaking news, the Democrats vote today to take over elections, take the power from the states. We'll talk about it today on Sekulow. Live from Washington, D.C., Sekulow Live. Phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Not too long ago, June 6, we talked about it on the air, Joe Manchin wrote an op-ed for the local newspaper in Charleston, West Virginia. Joe Manchin, why I'm voting against the For the People Act. Not only does he talk about why he's going to vote against the For the People Act two weeks ago, but he also says he would not support getting rid of the filibuster.

Makes it very clear in that op-ed. I mean, the title alone is why I'm voting against the For the People Act. But if you know enough about Joe Manchin's history, you know, to read into even that title, he's giving the door to Chuck Schumer and Democrats to say, this is what you need to do for me to vote for the For the People Act. It was a way for him to come out and look like he was opposing it and still carry that card if he wants to use it, but also to put on the table, what does Joe Manchin want to get them to 50.

Now we're going to break down all this. Why? Now this vote is today. Should be, if you're listening to us live, this will be four or five hours from now is where this vote would start, would occur. The vote is going to fail. They will not survive, it won't survive the filibuster.

So there won't be cloture. But the question is, do they get to 50? And if they get to 50, we talked a lot about what's in the For the People Act and why it's a, again, this, what we believe is unconstitutional parts of this federal takeover of the election process, which the Constitution lays out the processes, but also clearly defines the role for the states, a unique role for the states where it's not all uniform. It's not all exactly the same. And the Constitution makes that clear.

Now, here's, here's where we are though today. There's the, there's the piece of legislation. So you look at, will Joe Manchin vote to keep this alive on the legislative purpose for amendments and changes to make the changes he wants. But then second, if they get to 50, I want to go right to Thad Bennett, Washington, DC, because Thad, if they get to 50, if they get their caucus together, this also opens the door to the filibuster debate.

One part, which is the left of the party wants to do away with it in the Democrat party. Joe Manchin has been reported by the AP has floated just potentially even lowering the standard or returning to the rules where you've got to actually put forward a standing filibuster, where you're actually on the floor of the Senate, you know, reading the phone book kind of thing. Yeah, Jordan, you mentioned the op-ed that Senator Manchin wrote on June 6th. It took him exactly 10 days to walk away from his position on the underlying bill, the For the People Act.

Jordan, in that op-ed, it's literally in the same paragraph where he expresses opposition to the For the People Act and opposition to the filibuster. So it took him 10 days to walk away from what he wrote in the op-ed on the bill. How many days will it take him to walk away from the filibuster? As you suggest, Jordan, he's really already begun that walk away.

The question is, how fast will he continue it and how far will that walk away go? Will he support eliminating the filibuster all about altogether or will it just be a significant watering down? Either way, Jordan, it's going to be very telling. When he casts a vote today, he can say whatever he wants. But if he votes to proceed to this bill, he is voting to proceed to the substance of S1, the bill that just, you know, 15, 16 days ago, he told his voters he was against.

That's what's on the floor of the United States Senate today, Jordan. And what's unbelievable is what Joe Manchin is still for. He's still for mandating early voting and how many days that has to be at the state level. A federal takeover of redistricting voter ID, which he would allow, it would be a little less strict than the current legislation, but would allow for, you know, for bills and other things to be all, basically a list of other items you could use for ID purposes.

Automatic voter registration, mandating no excuse mail-in voting, and a different way to count provisional ballots based off where you, if you were the wrong voting district and precinct. So we're talking about all that, but the big issue is if they get to 50, there's the legislation that's bad. There's also the filibuster issue and what we can see there.

So we'll talk about that all today. 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. The focus today, and listen, he's put the focus on himself, so it will be on Joe Manchin. First, it's does he reverse course and end up, as Stan has made clear, what Joe Manchin said he wants changed in this legislation, which by the way, when you actually look at the changes, it's none of the issues that we really have serious problems with. It's other issues.

It's side. It's other pork he wants added, things he wants taken out, things he wants added. But what he'd be voting yes on today is not that. It's what he wrote in the op-eds and said he would not vote for unless.

So he's got to get to that unless. And the second issue here is not just the For the People Act or the talk from people like AOC and others that, well, if the Senate Democrats don't change their rules and put that voting together, we are going to, we can't rely on elections to pass our legislation. We can't rely on the people choosing to put us in power and empower enough of us to put our legislation through.

We have to force it through with rule changes. That second issue is going to be on the filibuster itself. Joe Manchin wrote the op-ed. He's opposed to getting rid of the filibuster, but now he's floating, changing the filibuster rule to lower the threshold or potentially go back to the old rule of actually having to do a standing filibuster. This is a huge issue for both sides, for both sides, because if you get to 50 today and that vote occurs, even though the vote will fail, then this will open the doors to a full-fledged debate on whether or not the filibuster stays or goes. And that's a, it's not like they've got the votes necessarily for that today, but like you just walked through, if, you know, the last 10 days Joe Manchin could go from an op-ed of why I'm not voting for it to someone who was in the hallways of his Capitol Hill office building this morning, taking questions from reporters and not answering how he's going to vote. And so it's not so clear cut. And then we get to that, the secondary issue, which I think he also wants to kind of force the debate on, which would be the filibuster. This whole thing is a ruse, Jordan. It's actors acting on a stage.

It really is. They're playing the long game in one sense, although I'm using the word long very loosely because it took, it took Senator Manchin all of 10 days to walk away from his opposition to the bill. So it could be a matter of, you know, another week or two where he changes his vote on the filibuster. And Jordan, you know, I really don't think I'm being unfair in that characterization because as you say, the bill that Senator Manchin has agreed to bring to the floor today on substance, I'm not reading anything into this on substance. It is S one with about three pages of what amount to clerical errors added by the chairman of the Senate rules committee, Amy Klobuchar, the underlying bill S one was 884 pages long. This one is 887 pages long. So they added things to it.

They did not remove the things that were most troubling. And then Jordan also on substance. I mean, I agree with you that the game here is about filibuster, but on, on substance here, even if you look at Joe Manchin slightly more than two pages of bullet points, and even if you take them, uh, him at his word and give him every benefit of the doubt that is out there, which I'm not sure that he deserves at this point. But if you do that, Jordan, the entire first half of his memo is bullet points that are the pillars of S one being transferred into his proposal. So he's building on top of what S one would do. That is what he is asking Democrats to do. And look, uh, they can almost say, well, we're trying to reach a deal. Well, we don't know what it is, Jordan. I mean, we have these two pages of bullet points where Senator Manchin is basically saying, I support S one.

I just want to add some other things into it. So if they get to 50 today, expect all of the attention in Washington, DC to shift to a focus on when and how to change or eliminate the filibuster. You can go back to June, but you can also just, uh, 10 days ago, you can also go to April 7th. This is in the Washington Post by Joe Manchin, an op-ed quote, the filibuster is a critical tool to protecting the input and our democratic form of government. That is why I've said it before.

And we'll say it again to remove any shred of doubt. There is no circumstance in which I will vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster. So in that op-ed in April, he was trying, the point of that was to say, don't try to get me to be the guy who says, well, maybe we'll go back to a standing filibuster. Maybe we'll take the number from 60 to 55.

I mean, go to Andy and then West as well. I mean, this is why you can, we've said it from the beginning as Joe Manchin, even when he wrote the op-ed, it got our attention because of the way he wrote it set up exactly what we're looking at today. Well, he's not someone you can rely on.

It's a thin read that you can rely on. And if he represents the people of West Virginia, which is a solidly red state when solidly for President Trump, then he should be doing what his people want him to do. He's not doing that. He did that on the April op-ed in the Washington Post and said it again after that, there is no circumstances in which I will vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster. And then he's already shifted on that too in subsequent conversations in which he has said, well, maybe it's 55, maybe it's 50, maybe I'll change it.

This is not right. You've got to be consistent when you're in politics. You need to say what you say, believe and believe in what you say and represent your people. And I don't think the people of West Virginia sent someone in there to weaken the filibuster. And certainly when they voted for President Trump, they voted for the way the accountability of government is today. And that is the right, and this is an important thing, the filibuster. You know, literally the filibuster is an important tool to stop legislation in the Senate, the greatest legislative body in the world that ought not to proceed.

And you're doing away with hundreds of years of history here. And the Democrats use it too. They may say, oh, it's terrible, it's a horrible thing, but they use it too, just like the Republicans do. And to lose it and to do away with it is to undermine and not to fail, is to fail to understand the historical significance of the filibuster. To me, Wes, when you look at all this setup that he's been going on through the spring and then into the summer, it's been these statements that look very definitive, but then you read into what he's actually saying, and he's always opening the door to doing what he might do today, which is one, vote for something where he's got an op-ed saying why I'm voting against it, vote for it, and then have the debate on his other op-ed, which is changing the filibuster rules.

Yeah, and if most any of us did that in some decision in our life, we would be embarrassed that we were that much of a flip-flop on it. You know, the Senate filibuster rule, it doesn't have the weight of legislation or the Constitution. It is a Senate rule.

But the purpose of the filibuster rule is so that when major changes in America, major pieces of legislation come before this deliberative body, that it ensures that there has to be bipartisanship, that on major things, it simply cannot be a simple majority vote. Nothing as consequential as what they're proposing in this, in aptly named for the People Act, nothing that major should be done on a party line vote. The filibuster is designed to address that very kind of thing, and yet they're willing to do that. And to the Constitution itself, in my opinion, I've never seen a more dangerous and horrible piece of proposed legislation than this bill that's coming before the Senate. It is, in fact, in my opinion, a constitutional crisis in the making. It's a violation of Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution. And what it amounts to, Jordan, is a desperate attempt by the Democrats to remain in power. And it's a hostile takeover of our free and fair elections in this country. And again, nothing this consequential should ever be done on a strict party line vote. That's what they're proposing. And if they get in their way, that's what will happen. Well, this is what I want to hear from you folks, 1-800-684-3110.

If you want to talk to us on air, that's 1-800-684-3110. But I think there's two competing issues here you have to understand is that they're using this same legislative vehicle to accomplish both. One is the federal takeover of elections. This is a dream of the Democrats. And they know they don't have the votes to get there under the current rules of the Senate. But they need to show that they could get there on a vote if they were to get Joe Manchin to be the 50th vote today. That then demonstrates that with the vice President, who sits as President of the Senate, can come in and be the 51st vote if they can get through cloture. They have to get past the filibuster rule, the 60-vote threshold on cloture.

They're nowhere near that. So then do they start wheeling and dealing on, well, maybe instead of 60, we'll make it 55. Or we'll just do away with it altogether. Or if you want to have a filibuster, that's OK. But it's not going to be based on the votes on cloture.

It's going to be based on you actually sitting and not yielding your time back. So those 24-hour sessions that you've seen on TV before with a standing filibuster. So this is all, again, and you can think short term, but I think that they realize this might be, in the past, what's kept parties from doing this is saying, well, think about the current Senate.

I mean, it's such a slim margin. If we get rid of this, they take back power. Well, there's no way we're going to stop any of their legislation. And this happened to Democrats. This has burdened Democrats in the past, judicial nominees, where they said, well, everything but the Supreme Court, no filibuster. And the Republicans said, well, when they got power, we're not going to let you filibuster our Supreme Court nominees. So we'll get rid of that too. So they set the precedent for that.

If you do this, what they are really telling you is, this is why you've got to balance these two issues. This legislation to them is so important. They think that basically you put this in, they can't lose the elections. They will not lose races.

They will win more races. They'll do better nationally if the federal government is in control of the election process. So is that worth the bigger risk of long-term potentially empowering Republicans and the opposition party and making it easier for them to put forward legislation? But is this such a big takeover of the process that it's worth taking that risk? And I think a lot of Democrats sitting there said it might be. If we could actually get this federal takeover of elections through, it might be worth risking a filibuster.

Right back. 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. 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. So, Thanh, a great question came in, and we've talked about this throughout this process as we lead up to this vote.

It was Karen on Facebook. So she said, you know, we've been talking about these unconstitutional provisions we believe in this law, the Four of the People Act. What is, I would point first is, the starting point is the Constitution itself. And it's Article 1.

It's right there in Section 4. It says elections. And right at the beginning of that, it says the time, place, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof, by the state legislature. So even the role of the states in deciding the time, place, and manner for Senate and House elections is given to the states. It's not given to the Senate and the House. It's not given to Congress to determine that.

So, Thanh, that's just a starting point. Because as the second question came in, through Ann on Facebook, would this affect the Electoral College at all? I mean, on its face, they're not changing the Electoral College, but they are changing, would like to change redistricting, which does change those numbers.

So she's right. It actually gets at the bigger issue too, which is how redistricting is done after we take a census and figure out who loses seats, who gains seats, and then also how those are distributed throughout the state. Yeah, Jordan, indirectly, it affects all of that. I mean, if you look at the mechanics of how an election work, everything from how voters are registered to how they go to the polls, to when they go to the polls, to how those votes are tabulated, to what they have to show when they go into a polling place to demonstrate they are, in fact, a legal voter, all of those mechanisms would move to the federal government, Jordan. So, of course, indirectly, they would have an impact on the Electoral College. And I think this is an egregious violation of that promise inside Article 1, Section 4, to give the time, manner, and place authority to the states to determine how elections go.

It's going to impact all of those things. And Jordan, I don't think you have to look any farther than Stacey Abrams to illustrate this point. She's, of course, been a huge proponent of moving the authority to the federal government.

And now here's what she's saying. She's saying, what Senator Manchin is putting forward are some basic building blocks that we need to ensure that democracy is accessible. And, Jordan, some have said that the fact that there will be some of picture identification inside a Manchin proposal, which I don't know if there will be or not, but if there is, they have said that makes it acceptable. But, Jordan, if you move the authority to determine what kind of voter ID is acceptable and what can be put in its place, that is, of course, going to move in only one direction going forward. So, yeah, they might use it as a red herring to say, look, we like this particular standard of voter ID.

But, Jordan, if it is the federal government setting that standard and in the process it eviscerates all of the other state laws, well, look, it's only going to be an election cycle or two before all voter ID is watered down to effectively nothing. So CNN caught up with Manchin in the hallway of his Capitol office. We got that now for you. And take a listen, because he actually talks about in this, well, if Stacey Abrams supports, you know, I think we're moving in the right direction. That tells you everything right there. This is not some moderate Democrat.

This is a guy who plays with words. He wants maybe a few changes for him that's better for West Virginia that he thinks he can sell to constituents back home. But, I mean, this is in line with the mainstream thinking of where the Democrat party is right now. Take a listen.

Real good. You've had President Obama come out. You've had basically Stacey Abrams. We're looking at a much more, I think, a much fairer, a much better approach to take. I mean, he literally, you know, the way he just says, the idea is he's already set up, I think, by calling it the voting rights bill. He's not voting against this. I mean, Andy, he's starting to implement, he's putting in people like Stacey Abrams, who is a Democrat activist organizer, who took advantage of Georgia laws and got Georgia to these consent decrees and basically allow voter harvesting, things that weren't allowed before. Now Georgia's gone back and changed the rules so that they aren't taken advantage of that way. But if he's pointing to her as the gold standard in this, I think he's already a yes vote.

Yeah. I mean, that's laughable to point to Stacey Abrams as someone who can bring you together as someone who is going to be conservative or is going to be constitutional in her approach is ridiculous. As you said, she forced through the voter harvesting idea, the mass registration, the mail-in ballots for no excuse whatsoever, a consent decree, a decree that the state of Georgia just fell into because they were too scared to litigate it. That's what it was.

The state of Georgia and the attorney general were too scared to litigate the case. And so they caved in in this consent degree with the mail-in ballots and voters. She's the person and Obama that you're leaning again on in order to determine which way you're going to vote. I don't think it's going to be one that's going to be constitutional. So instead of calling this the For the People Act, it is really the Against the People Act.

When you get down to it, it's certainly against the states and therefore against what the constitution says. This again, when I listen to that, and I'm always listening for where he's thinking on this, to me, by calling it a voting rights bill, using that kind of language instead of For the People Act, it's pretty tough when you set up it's a voting rights bill to say, no, I'm voting against the voting rights bill. So he's already using the rhetoric.

Then he's throwing out the key names to the left, but also to the right of where he's taking the the info from. If he's being advised by Stacey Abrams in that world of politics, this is the takeover we're talking about. He's just playing a game to his own constituents.

He wanted people off his back. That's why we've been on it the whole time, because when we read the op-ed, we said, no, no, this is a guy who wants to have it both ways. Now, this is kind of judgment day on that, but I think you hear that rhetoric in the hallway, something significant would have to happen for him to somehow now vote no. A hundred percent, Jordan, he's going to be a yes. I mean, that conversation that you played, it's the first time I've heard it, Jordan, but it tells me a hundred percent he's going to be a yes on this vote today. And we need to be very clear in advance of this vote, what he is voting yes on, because that answer that he gave was disingenuous at best, Jordan. And I'm being kind because he's trying to say that he's going to be voting on a compromise. Look, let's say that he and Senator Manchin come to some sort of deal on a compromise.

I'm very likely to oppose a lot of what is in that compromise. But here's the truth, Jordan, that's not what he's voting on today. Even if they come up with a deal, it's not like they're going to drop that in a new piece of legislation and vote on that at 5.30 today. No, he is taking a vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to the substance of S1, the For the People Act. If Joe Manchin votes yes today, that is what he's going to be voting yes on. And if he were being honest about this, if they reached a deal, there would be a way to take a vote on that compromise deal.

You would put it in a piece of legislation and you would put it on the floor of the Senate and you would take a vote. I don't know if it would pass or not, but we've got to be very clear, Jordan, when he votes yes today, as I am now convinced that he is going to do, he won't be voting yes on any compromise or any deal. He will be voting yes on the substance of S1, which they have renumbered as S2093.

It won't be on a compromise package. This is significant. We've got a second half hour coming up. We'll replay that sound because I think that sound and the words he uses, the people he invokes, it tells you so much about where Joe Manchin's head is right now, where his staff's head is, who he's getting input from and pressure from. And we never bought it from the beginning, this whole idea that he was in no vote and no on the filibuster changes.

But, you know, you always, he always has to feel like he was, he got something out of it. He somehow is, that is not what they're voting on. He would be voting on legislation unchanged. The legislation he said he would never vote for, he's planning now, it looks like, to vote yes on.

And we'll talk about that. 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. Live from Washington, D.C., Sekulow Live.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, folks, so there's a major vote happening later today in Washington, D.C. Now, you can focus, one, on the actual legislation itself. It's horrible. The For the People Act. This idea of basically it's a federal takeover, congressional takeover of the election process, which is clearly these powers, these structures, the time, place and manner. The idea of how long are we going to have early voting?

How long are we going to have? What's the requirements for absentee? What's the voter ID requirement? That's done by the states.

It's Article 1 of the Constitution that whether you like voter ID or not, that that is, again, there's certain the planning of these elections, that time, place and manner in the Constitution is not given to Congress to figure out. It's given to state legislatures to figure out. And so that's, again, that's a legislative issue. It's not going to get enough votes to actually get to Joe Biden's desk today. Okay, so that's where you can focus on, yes, it will fail, and then it will not be able to overcome a cloture vote, which right now requires 60 votes. So the big issue is, in that vote, do they get to 50? Do they get Joe Manchin, the Democrat from West Virginia, who said he would never vote for this, said he would never vote to change the filibuster? Because if they do, yes, they want to advance their legislation to show they're unified. But second, they then get to force the debate on a filibuster change. And we've already heard that Joe Manchin has gone from saying he's opposed to doing anything that would weaken the filibuster to weakening the filibuster, from taking it from the 60-vote threshold to a 55-vote threshold, or going back to the standing filibuster. So he's already gone from saying he wouldn't do anything to weaken it to say, well, now he's open to weakening it. He also said he would never vote for this legislation, which, by the way, has none of his changes in it when he takes that vote today.

He would be voting to pass a law that has none of his changes and none of his amendments, no major switch. So I want you all to understand that. And again, we're taking your phone calls, 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. But I want to play it again right now for you, because this is Joe Manchin talking to CNN on the move in Capitol Hill. Take a listen. So again, when we break all that down, Washington, D.C., the Washington talk that's going on there, he's already changing the name of the legislation to a voting rights bill, which, if you would start putting it that way, becomes much more difficult to vote against in a few hours. He's invoking the names of pretty, you know, again, mainstream, but on the left side of politics inside the Democrat Party, Stacey Abrams, who's seen as kind of the gold standard of going in and trying to maximize the law to the partisan purposes.

But he did all that. Again, he chooses, you know, he tries to sound folksy, but he's not invoking. To me, he just said, yes, I'm going to vote yes, and I'm going to be probably open to the idea of filibuster reform. I just feel that in the tone.

That's where he's going. This is crazy talk, Jordan. First of all, he pretends he doesn't know what bill he's being asked about when that's the only bill in this series.

It's just ridiculous. But look, I'm holding in my hands the first few pages of the bill that's going to be voted on tonight and the last few pages. It's S2093. We're not waiting on a final version. No matter what Senator Manchin says, he can negotiate whatever he wants and put it in a new piece of legislation. But when he goes to the well of the Senate tonight, he is going to be voting to proceed to not whatever final bill he's talking about. He's going to be voting on S1, which is now renamed, retitled S2093. He's going to cast a vote in favor.

No matter what he tells his constituents, that's what's on the floor of the Senate tonight. All right, folks, we come back again. We'll continue to break this down for you and your calls.

1-800-684-3110. Your comments as well on Facebook, YouTube, Periscope. We'll be right back. 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, the 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. Something we fought so hard against too at the ACLJ was the targeting of organizations, grassroots organizations started by Americans who want to follow the rules of the game, but want to be active in the game and want to be in the process. And we represented all those tea party groups and conservative groups. And this data, what provision, we've talked about the air before, but it's still there.

And Joe Manchin would be voting for this too as well. It actually gives cover to the IRS and IRS bureaucrats. So they call it the lowest learner provision. It's the cover so that they can look at political motivations. They can determine whether groups, and we talked about this example of another group facing this on Friday. It may not be as widespread right now, but this would protect the tax exempt division of the IRS. The law would actually protect them from being accused of taking politically motivated positions because they would actually be encouraged to take politically motivated decisions.

It's pretty astonishing and brazen, Jordan. I mean, back when we defended the tea party groups from the targeting that took place, not just that was imagining it took place, the IRS has now admitted this. They were targeting conservatives based on their viewpoint. They were using what is called a be on the lookout list to look for keywords, keywords like Patriot, Jordan, or tea party, as if that was somehow not allowed under the statute, which of course it was.

They were using those key phrases to target conservatives based on their viewpoint. When we took that case to court, it was a very long process, Jordan, but we want a couple of things. First of all, we want a consent decree that mandated that the IRS not engage in these activities. We also accomplished through the statutory process, a change in statute, a change in law that was signed into Trump by President Trump in 2018, that prohibited the IRS from doing this. This bill that's going to be on the floor of the United States Senate.

And Jordan, I think we also need to make this point. This bill has already passed the house of representatives. So the bill that passed the house of representatives as HR1 and will be on the floor tonight, the substance of S1 now named S2093, Jordan, it would repeal that statutory rule that was passed in 2018. We call it the Lois Lerner rule because it was in response to the actions taken by Lois Lerner. But either way, however you want to call it, that piece of statute, that piece of US law would be repealed by this law. And again, we've talked a lot about Senator Manchin, but it's nowhere in his list of proposals for compromise. So guess what is still in the bill when he votes on it tonight. It's a repeal of that Lois Lerner rule.

And it would say to the IRS, go ahead, free game, open season. You can target conservatives again. Yeah. I would say, I want to go to the phones. Donna in New Jersey online. Hey Donna, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air. Thank you all so much for everything you do.

I appreciate you very much. My quick question is if S2093 is passed tonight, can it be overturned in subsequent legislation, say by a new administration, say by a Republican conservative legislation? So you can always, sure. This would be legislation. It's not a constitutional amendment.

So you could go through the normal process. We're not even talking about though. This is not getting there, Andy. I mean, this is not going to have the votes to become law anywhere close tonight. The only way this could have a chance of becoming law is if they get the 50th vote, which I think they have by Joe Manchin, and if the other 49 are in line, which there's really been a lot of talk about them not being, but then the second issue, which is a harder herd for them to climb, but it gets them to having the discussion, is doing away with the filibuster. And that opens up a legislative floodgate where depending on partisan politics, you can have these laws changing every couple of years. Yeah, I think there's no doubt that Joe Manchin is going to vote yes tonight. I think we need to stop playing games with him and him playing games with us and with the public, making op-eds, saying one thing, and then talking to reporters and saying something else. Joe Manchin is going to vote yes to permit the advancement of this legislation into a debate.

That's not debatable in my view. That's going to happen. He's going to do that. And the question that the caller asks is, can it be changed with subsequent legislation?

Yes, it can. Subsequent legislatures, new senates, new houses of representatives with different majorities can change the legislation. But we need to face the fact that reality right now is that we are at a crossroads in our political republic procedures right now.

And it's a very important crossroads. The Senate is the stopgap. The Senate is the place where legislation stops and the reason bipartisanship that has made this country what it is needs to take place. Senator Manchin is violating that rule, in my view, by flip-flopping all over in what he is doing. Well, I think what you said, Andy, too, and we now have the op-ed by the Senator from Arizona, Senator Sinema, who also plays kind of the Joe Manchin role, more of a moderate politically. He's also been publicly opposed to the idea of changing the filibuster. Here's why I think Andy's right, too, and Thanh's right that Joe Manchin is a yes on this vote right now.

That happens later today. They're already now having the debate over the filibuster. So they've already gotten this legislative vehicle to get them to the filibuster debate. Now, Senator Sinema has come out, Thanh, in a Washington Post op-ed. We, uh, to say that we have more to lose than gain by ending the filibuster, that she supports retaining the 60-vote threshold for the filibuster. I think I go to this point, which is, yes, we know that that is the harder ask for them, but there's also, like, the definition of what it, what filibuster is. That's what I look at in this op-ed. I haven't had the chance. This is just pieces of it.

It just came out. But it's, how is she defining the word filibuster? Because it also, it becomes, uh, it depends on who you ask in Washington about what a filibuster is. Yeah, you definitely put your finger on it, Jordan, and actually the list of Democrat senators who are going to try to straddle this fence is actually quite a bit longer.

I mean, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema get the most ink, but also people like Jackie Rosen, Maggie Hassan, John Hickenlooper, and then maybe some old bulls, too. You know, someone like Patrick Leahy or Dianne Feinstein. A lot of them will want to say, we like the customs and institutions of the Senate. We have some concerns about eliminating or reforming the filibuster. But, Jordan, you've talked about a lot of different ways that it could be watered down or it could be changed. I think maybe the one that might, that they might make an appeal to this large group on both the left and right of the Democrat caucus to say, just kind of hold your, hold hands to, and now everybody jumped together, might be one of, well, if we're going to address issues of fundamental structure or of, of fundamental civil rights, if we're going to talk about voting elections, certain issues, Jordan, shouldn't be subject to a super majority threshold. If we're protecting the rights of the minority, if we're making sure that people have access to the ballots, that's something that we should reform the use of the filibuster for. And I just think whether it's later in this term or maybe it's right after the 22 elections, depending on how those pan out, I think they will come back to these senators who are trying to have it both ways and say, listen, we understand your concerns, but those evil Republicans, have just pushed us too far.

I know you don't want to do it, but you have to do it. So Jordan, Kirsten Sinema can write whatever she wants, but look, let's look back at what Joe Manchin wrote on June 6th. What is it today?

June 22nd? And already he's walked away from that. So this is not a stake in the sand that cannot be moved.

Yeah. I mean, this is all, it's saying that we shouldn't have changed the filibuster, but then in her same op-ed, she says, we need to have the debate. So it's that, and when you have a debate, people's minds change.

I mean, that's the kind of like the definition of it. And so you go down this line, this is, this is where they're, this is where they all want to go. And if you get put off by, uh, just what's in the legislation, you're not focusing on the big game here, the bigger game, which is the federal takeover elections, plus the end of the filibuster. This is the party that started that process under Joe Manchin. And I think it's under Harry Reid. And so they've been down this road before it's bitten them when it comes to Supreme court nominees and certainly in the courts and federal court nominees.

But if they see that this legislative, this legislation would be so important or impactful for other Democrats in the future elections, that it may be worth giving up the filibuster for. So they're having, I'm opposed to it. I'll never do this, but we should have a full debate on it because as Dan said in that full debate, we'll get to blame the Republicans, how horrible they are. They're the worst. They're the reason why we're having to do this to try to prevent people. It's like Joe Manchin, instead of calling it, you know, SR1 or the, the for the people act, calling it the voting rights bill.

That's key. I mean, that is already putting it in partisan terms because anybody who opposes voting rights, well, that's a bad person, right? Those Republicans are bad. That idea that if you're, is just trying to, again, redefine what this debate is about, which is the proper role of Congress, the proper role of the states, why you could have, you won't have full uniformity unless the states choose to do that, that they can have differences based off the size of their state, size of their population, where people are, demographics, et cetera. They get to kind of there's a figure that out because they were, they, at the state level, they've got war impact. That is how our founding fathers intended this to be. So I really do think that the long game play here, they like us to focus all the time on this is unconstitutional and it's certainly worthwhile to go through this legislation, but it's the vehicle to end the filibuster.

And they're all playing right into that debate as well. The final segment coming up, we'll take your phone calls, 1-800-684-3110. Get your comments in on Facebook, on Periscope, on YouTube as well. And we'll get to those as we come back.

1-800-684-3110. I encourage you also check out ACLJ.org. Thad's got a new piece on this, walks through all the legislation again.

So you want to check that out. Just got posted this morning, right before we went on air at ACLJ.org. We'll be right back.

Let's take you there. 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. All right, I'm gonna go right to the phones. Kib has been holding on from Idaho on line three. Kib, welcome to Sekulow, you're on the air.

Hi, thank you for taking my call. So my question is, I'm hearing the Democrats blaming Republicans for not wanting to come to the table about all this. But isn't it the Republicans that lost the last election and we were the ones screaming for reform? So I mean, if this was such a great deal for the American people, wouldn't we be on board with this?

It doesn't make sense. Yeah, yeah. But Kib, the thing is, everything that went wrong in the last election, these issues about, because of, a lot of this was, remember, let's remind people why states were rapidly, quickly changing their rules and sometimes not seeing how those rules, how that could impact the election, was because of COVID. And so you had this massive expansion of mail-in voting where ballots were just being sent out. Live ballots is what we call them. Not requests for ballots, but actual live ballots were being sent out.

So we all saw, okay, there were problems. States, I mean, Than, a number of states have taken action so that the problems of the last election don't sully the next election cycle, that we don't have those issues of people that doubt, whether they should or shouldn't, they doubt the integrity of the election and the protection of the integrity of the election. This would actually put into legislative stone all of the problems we saw in the last election cycle because states quickly acted to either allow localities to change rules, but again, it was states who did it. It was not the federal government, Than, and it's because states are the ones who have been given this power. It was not the federal government who came and said, you need to do voting this way or have the voting this way.

They didn't assert that they had the power then. Jordan, it would make permanent in federal law many of the worst problems that we saw about the 2020 elections. And yet, like you said, many of those changes were enacted in a rushed manner.

This would not only make them permanent, but would move to the federal government, to Washington DC, the authority for exactly how those mechanics will work. I would submit to you, Jordan, that I actually think in the wake of this election, we have seen why it is so important to have decentralized elections. I mean, regardless of what you think about the 2020 elections, I think there were a lot of changes that were made in a rushed fashion, but every state or not every state, Jordan, but a lot of states went back and took a careful look at how the elections went in their state and said, do we need to sure them up? Do we need to make sure that the people of our state have more confidence, have more ability to ensure that elections are not tainted or tampered with?

And many of them have taken action. Jordan, look, I think that ability to decentralize elections is going to be fundamental if we're going to have confidence in our elections. And I would also submit to you, if these changes are looked at carefully and over a long period of time, I think you will have a scenario where states choose to do elections a little bit different. And I actually think that's a good thing because it does not mean the same thing to live in Montana as it does to live in Manhattan or in San Francisco.

And I think states should have the ability to look at their population, to look at how their people live and say, we're going to provide access to the polls in a way that matches our population. Jordan, if you do that from Washington, D.C. in a one size fits all manner, it will never work as well. Let's go to Eric in Texas online one. Hey, Eric, welcome to secular. You're on the air. Hey, thank you for taking my call, Jordan. I really appreciate it. It's an honor to be on your show.

Thanks. OK, I'm going to go ahead and get to my point. I'll get to my question earlier. You said something about it may not have the votes. I'm just I needed some clarification. Do they have the votes to go forward with this?

No. So they will. They are under the current rules of the Senate. They did not have the votes to get to the 60 vote threshold. Remember, they you first have to clear that threshold, the filibuster, if you will, the 60 vote cloture threshold to then have the vote.

And then when you get past that threshold, you only need 51. So what they are trying to demonstrate tonight is that they have the 50 plus the vice President. So if it was if not for the filibuster, Andy, this would become law. This would be on Joe Biden's desk. So now let's have the debate on getting rid of the filibuster.

And that's it. So would you ask, Eric, do they have the votes for the bill tonight? In a sense, if they get that Joe Manchin vote, which we're all kind of in agreement that they've got at this point, they have the 50 votes. They do have the votes. They want Andy so they can have the bigger debate. Yeah, that's true.

That's exactly right. And I think Joe Manchin will cave in and vote yes tonight on proceeding with the with the legislation. And I think ultimately he's going to vote in favor of this bill. Ultimately, I don't care what kind of compromises puts in, he is going to do it. He is a flip flop person.

He is not to be trusted. He is not someone that you can rely upon to do what he says he's going to do because he changes his mind so much, regardless of the fact that his state is staunchly red, staunchly conservative. I think that ultimately he's going to vote yes tonight. And he's ultimately going to vote yes for the bill. That's what I think. Yeah, Scott, Oklahoma online to a Scott, welcome to secular year on the air.

Hey, uh, thank you for all the stuff you do. I've got a question on if HR one passes, what is the likelihood? Do you think the Supreme court would overturn it? I thought for sure they would intercede or make a decision on the States that filed the lawsuit and they punted the ball and did nothing. Yeah. Listen, I think we're a legal organization, the ACLJ, but courts are the place of last resort.

I mean, Wes, this, when it comes down to it, this is a battle that you do not want to have in court. I think it gets very piecemeal. You know, we talked about all these different provisions. You'd have to go provision by provision by provision.

I'm not saying that you couldn't be successful Scott. Our position is that a lot of this is unconstitutional, the power grab as a whole. So if you look at it in the entirety, but you'd have to piece by piece West, that's not where we want to go in the battle. We certainly can be prepared to do that. But first it's, do we even have to go there? And, and I think it's, it's the bigger issue of where would we be going with a lot of legislation if there's no filibuster? Yeah. Bad legislation needs to be stopped, you know, in the house of representatives, in the Senate, you know, we do not want to go to court. You're right.

That is, that is something that is last resort. But, you know, the other thing about this, this is not a voting rights bill. This is taking away the voting rights of States and their citizens within the parameters of things like civil rights law to administer their own elections. So for Joe Manchin to call it a voting rights bill is completely misleading, as is the criticism of the States that have enacted new voting legislation. And there have been so many lies told by people like Stacey Abrams and the President, for example, about Georgia's law, which expanded voting. It increased voting. It did not restrict voting. You look at Georgia's law or Texas law and compare it to the home state of Delaware, where the President's from, it's much more expensive in these other States to actually have the right to vote.

So there's so much mischaracterization going on. And one of those is that somehow this is a voting rights bill. You know, Thad, one part of this that I think just kind of sum it up for everybody with only about a minute and a half left is that we're going to see this vote. We all believe they've got the 50 votes that will fail. So what happens next to get them to that filibuster debate?

I mean, this is, this is the vehicle to get there. If they get the 50 votes, what would, what would happen next? Well, I think they, if they wanted to legislate, Jordan, they would have to turn their attention to Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin and try to convince them that some parliamentary move, again, we talked about maybe, maybe only reform the filibuster for certain types of legislation, but this is that type of legislation. They would have to convince them.

But the other thing, Jordan, it's something that you've been alluding to this whole show. Maybe they don't, they don't want to legislate. Maybe they're playing a game with the American people. Maybe they want to make this political. Maybe they wanted to make it about a tax on Republicans either way, Jordan, they're going to shift to that policy after today, when I think the vote will be 50 50 on cloture on the motion to proceed. They're not going to legislate as a result of this.

And I think this is probably a good place to leave you from Washington, DC. Here's what Joni Ernst said about this effort. Jordan, she said, they're trying to change the rules in order to fundamentally change the country. I think that's, what's on the floor of the Senate today.

Yeah. I mean, again, change the rules, change the country. And so what we're just seeing is the beginning of this debate. Can they, do they have their first success, which is just keeping their party together. So thinking of the second debate on ending the filibuster, maybe they'll say, oh, we're only going to do it when it's voting rights legislation. And then we can pass this takeover.

I mean, they're all open to it. We're going to be watching it carefully. Check out ACLJ.org and fans, do a peace share with your friends and family.

We'll talk to you tomorrow. 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.