Recommendations can be great. Maybe someone recommended this podcast, and here you are. But home projects are a little different. If the podcast isn't your thing, you might lose a few minutes from your day, but if you hire your cousin's neighbor to mount your TV, you might end up with a lopsided screen and wall damage. I Know A Guy isn't a good strategy for your home. That's why Thumbtack works so well. It matches you with top-rated local pros with photos, reviews, and credentials all in one convenient place. For your next home project, try Thumbtack. Hire the right pro today. I think the most chilling thing about the Bondi story is not that he doesn't like the fact that she handled the Epstein files. In that, I actually agree with him. Maybe I dislike the way she handled the Epstein files in a different direction than him, but that is not the chilling part. The chilling part is she is not aggressively enough pursuing his political opponents. And she's pretty aggressively misusing the Department of Justice to go after Donald Trump's political opponents, and he doesn't think it's far enough. Welcome to Raging Moderates. I'm Jessica Tarlev, and today I'm joined by Mark Elias, one of the country's top election lawyers, the top election lawyer in the country, and the founder of Democracy Docket, Mark. Welcome back to the show. Thanks for having me on. Absolutely. This is perfect, like super bowl timing, actually, to have you join the podcast, though, in the Trump era. It feels like maybe the super bowl of fighting them in court is like every day. We're the other team, by the way, periodically, the coach of the other team, to sort of like wander up and down the sidelines, like yelling at clouds. Yelling at clouds and still getting paid billions of dollars. Which also links to your work. If you aren't already, please make sure to subscribe to our YouTube page to stay in the loop on all the political news. I want to start with the prime time address. You watched the 20 Minutes. I did. How did you feel? What was that? Like, literally, what was that? Like, I am accustomed to the rambling, hateful Donald Trump, but then there's like the, we put a teleprompter in front of him and make him be really boring Donald Trump. And last night was just kind of like the, he just was incoherent. Why did he need a prime time address for that? Well, I think that some interns stitched together a bunch of truth social posts, basically. And I should not have aspirations to like actually get something new and coherent or that like moves the country forward or a real policy position from the president. But when they were leaking to the press yesterday, you know, these are the four goals. Like, I thought, okay, we're gonna hear it's two to three weeks left, the Stone Age line. And maybe there'll be something substantive, but I'm sure the networks are looking around at themselves saying, obviously we had to take it because Brendan Carr is gonna come and assassinate us. But like I delayed survivor 20 minutes for this. Actually, let's watch a clip of it. We're now totally independent of the Middle East. And yet we are there to help. We don't have to be there. We don't need their oil. We don't need anything they have, but we're there to help our allies. Totally independent of the Middle East. Oil just hit $113 a barrel, up 13% just today alone. We don't feel that independent from the Middle East. No, and like I said, I've been around presidents, presidential candidates, House and Senate members, a lot of politicians. Was that loaded in the teleprompter? Like literally? Like what? Right, exactly it was. Like, who did someone write that and then go home and be like, you're not gonna believe, I wrote this amazing speech for the president of the United States and that's what it was. I mean, it's incoherent. We're independent of the Middle East. Gas prices are skyrocketing. The markets are reacting negatively. But we're here to help. I mean, it's either really bad staff work or a president who is much further gone than we understand or some combination of both. I've been fascinated by the betting markets or prediction markets aspect of this. And I brought this up on the five yesterday that the same polymarket wallet that had $500,000 on exactly the moment that we were gonna first strike Iran has $800,000 on a ground invasion. A, do you think we are heading for the ground invasion? And B, are we ever going to be able to regulate what's going on here? I know that there are bills, you know, Chris Murphy has a bill about this, but the people who are supposed to doing the regulating are having to quit because it's impossible to get any work done in this DOJ, in this SEC. Yeah, so, you know, on the betting markets, I mean, if you bet, to use an unfortunate term, on the insider knowledge, you usually want. In other words, like when you see these really weird, you know, large, oddly timed bets, they in a shockingly large number tend to pay off. So, you know, I would, I'm not gonna tell anyone to engage in the betting markets, but don't ignore the real possibility or likelihood that there are people who have knowledge, who are then, you know, who are then taking financial advantage of it by, through the betting markets. Look, I think there has to be some kind of regulation of this, I mean, like, you know, states have anti-gambling laws or regulate gambling for a lot of good reasons. And I understand that the betting markets think that they have found some loophole to that, but if that's the case, then I think honestly, there needs to be further regulations. I mean, it's just, it's a crazy way to let the government run where you can have people who have, you know, some type of insider information, bet on things like war and peace. Yeah, I mean, I understand, you know, odds of Jesus's actual resurrection and things like that are fun for people, but the war and peace and also that, you know, there was a big expose about Pete Hegceth's financial advisor making a big bet, but they actually lost. And I'm like, how can the secretary of defense be the one person who didn't end up profiting from the war that he seemingly controls? It may tell you two things about Pete Hegceth. Number one, that he may be the dumbest cabinet official in a cabinet with a lot of dumb people, but number two, it may indicate that actually Donald Trump doesn't trust him with real information. Both are really bad for our status quo as we are engaged in a war that he seemingly has some degree of control over from the Pentagon at Mar-a-Lago. I'm sure you saw the Times report that apparently Pam Bondi might be on the chopping block and Tulsi Gabbard, two key figures in your world and your work. Do you think that there's truth to that and what do you think the implications are? Yeah, look, I think the most chilling thing about the Bondi story is not that, you know, he doesn't like the fact that she handled the Epstein files. In that, I actually agree with him. Maybe I dislike the way she handled the Epstein files in a different direction than him, but like, I, like, that is not the chilling part. The chilling part is she is not aggressively enough pursuing his political opponents. And like, she's pretty aggressively, like, misusing the Department of Justice to go after Donald Trump's political opponents. And he doesn't think it's far enough. I do worry that, you know, we are still in the early innings of this administration. And Donald Trump is searching for an attorney general who will more efficiently and effectively, you know, ignore the facts in the law and go after people that Donald Trump doesn't like. It does feel like there's a flailing happening now that, like, the first year of the administration, I didn't think as much. I mean, we should note it's one year since liberation day to day. Obviously, the impact of the tariffs has been disastrous for the economy. And, you know, Skotis pulled him back a bit. But in general, like, the last few months and certainly with the war, it's felt like a flailing crescendo, I guess, like, that the polls are catching up with the reality on the ground for Trump. Are you sensing that as well? And do you think that means that they're just going to go hyper lawless because they have nothing else to do and they're staring down the barrel of losing the midterms? Yeah, I think that you put your finger on my biggest concern. You know, normally when you have politicians who are not popular, when you're presidents who are not popular, what it does is it causes them to moderate. Remember the triangulation, that concept of triangulation from the Clinton era? Right, that was nothing more than saying, like, look, when you're not popular, like, what you need to do is find the midpoint between Democrats and Republicans and try to create policies that are essentially popular, you know, with both sides or try to, you know, play the two sides and you look like you're in the middle. That's sort of politics 101. The problem with Donald Trump is that he, I think, views his unpopularity as a lack of constraint. In other words, that if he's not popular, what it means is that popularity is no longer the metric by which he is going to gauge himself successful or not. So I think what it means, he is much more likely to undermine free and fair elections. This fall, we just saw him issue a blatantly unconstitutional executive order. I think it means that he will flirt much more seriously and dangerously with the misuse of federal agents, whether they're ICE or CPV or whoever, around the elections. We've seen him say he wished he'd seized the ballots after the 2020 election and we saw him seize ballots related to the 2020 election in Fulton County and subpoena is the partner justice subpoena them in Arizona. So I think we're actually, I think him being unpopular actually is much more dangerous to the midterm elections than if he was moderately unpopular like he's normally, but he would then be like, oh, but I'll just gin up my base and I'll go to rallies. I think that once he loses faith in that as a tool, he doesn't moderate. He actually just looks for a more authoritarian tool. Yeah, I mean, worse for me because I have to watch the rallies, but probably better for us if he's having a great time in rural Ohio with a bunch of diehard MAGA fans because that 25% of the base is definitely still there. I know that you've brought a lawsuit now about his latest mail-in voting EO, which he signed a couple of days ago. Can you talk about what's going on with that case and that world in particular? Yeah, so look, this is a very dangerous inflection point in our democracy. Donald Trump in 2025 issued an executive order last year saying that he was going to change some of the rules related to voter registration. And I represented the Democratic Party and we sued and we won. And the outcome of that was a federal district court order in which the judge said in very plain terms that the president of the United States plays no role. Okay, that's the ruling of the court, no role in regulating federal elections. And by the way, that accords with the constitution, which says that states set the time, place, and manner of elections subject only to Congress's legislative override. And there is nothing in any part of the constitution that gives the president any role in this area. We thought that maybe that was the end of it. You know, he had taken his shot and he had lost, but no, he came back now with a new executive order, which even Republicans, you know, not on the record, but Republicans are whispering, is just bonkers. I mean, it's just fucking nuts. I mean, he is essentially saying that he is gonna have the Department of Homeland Security create a master list of all eligible US citizens to vote and that he will send these to the states and the states may only send absentee ballots to the people on the list that his DHS provides them. I mean, it's a, and then the postal service is gonna ban the postal service from carrying mail in ballots and there's certain circumstances. He doesn't have the power to do any of those things, none of them, but he is doing it because if he can create the master list of who can vote and who can't vote, you know, Jessica, I have a feeling I know which list you and I are gonna wind up on. I think I have a pretty good idea of what lists a whole lot of Democrats are gonna wind up on. And if you don't believe that, like just look at, read the Dear Pam, the Dear Pam's truth social of a few months ago when he told Pam, Pam Bondi, you know, who to go prosecute. So look, this is very dangerous. We file a lawsuit on behalf of the National Democratic Party as well as Senator Schumer and Leader Jeffries. And I have every expectation we're gonna win, but I also have very expectation that this is not the last effort that Donald Trump will engage in. He's not like, you know, a rule of law kind of guy, you know, if he loses, he doesn't say, okay, I guess I can't do that. He does not take defeat well. And yeah, I remember that Dear Pam letter. I think that was the one that we thought had to have been a private DM, but that he just put it out there because he is 80 years old and those things kind of happen, even if you're the leader of the free world. So I'm very nervous about that. Not only the kind of McCarthyist list of folks like you and me and, you know, outspoken Republicans too, I don't think it's just like a damn versus Republican. It's just like an outspoken Republican probably are in worse shape. Yeah. Well, sorry, Bull work. That's the worst for you. Not to hijack your show, but I've been meaning to ask you, do you have his phone number? It seems like everyone's got his phone number. Have you ever just like picked up the phone and called the president? No, I haven't. I mean, I definitely, I could access it easily. And, you know, my colleagues are in seemingly pretty decent, constant communication with him, but I was thinking, like, last week he called into the five and he said a lot of insane things. Like it doesn't matter if the Iranians have food and water because Dana Perino is hotter than she was in 2016, which I think was probably the most like Trumpian hideous moment, but he was then shit talking me. And I was like, should we just invite him on raging moderates? Like, is that because he would probably love to do it because he's not going to have to answer any or he won't answer the questions. And then I thought if we did that, Scott would like definitely demand to be there and he would just explode and it would be so ugly. And I would just be sitting there like this. So no, I have not. I don't have access to the phone number right away, but I could text someone and get it. Do you want, should we call them together? That'd be amazing. We could do a whole episode of raging moderates where like you were like, a live stream where we're just calling him. We should do it at like 3 a.m. when he is having a Diet Coke and watching a replay of the five and just like really get him juiced up. Okay, let's take a quick break. Stay with us. I'm Maria Sharapova and I'm hosting a new podcast called Pretty Tough. Every week I'm sitting down with trailblazing women at the top of their game to discuss ambition, work ethic, and the ups and downs that come on the path to achieving greatness. We'll dive into their stories and get valuable insights from top executives, actors, entrepreneurs, and other individuals who have inspired me so much in my own journey. Follow Pretty Tough wherever you get your podcasts. Elon Musk spent most of this week sitting in a courtroom litigating some of the most important moments in the early history of the AI revolution. He didn't do a great job and the ways in which he didn't do a great job may come back to haunt Elon Musk in a pretty big way. This week on The Vergecast, we're talking about what's going on in Musk versus open AI and how it might affect the rest of the tech industry. Plus, the most exciting laptop we've seen in a while and maybe the most exciting game controller we've seen in a while. All that on The Vergecast wherever you get podcasts. Welcome back. So, birthright citizenship and this links to voting as well. I want to get your general take on how you thought yesterday went. I mean, granted, my feed is curated in a certain direction on days like this, so I was seeing all of the government's fuck ups, I guess, more than if he landed any great points, but it seemed like Justice Roberts was extremely skeptical of the argument the government was making. I don't know how anyone shows up in front of Neil Gorsuch and doesn't think they're going to be asked about Native Americans. It feels like someone posted like, oh, I'm going to interview the Cookie Monster. Do you think the Cookie Monster might ask me about cookies? Oh, no worries. I don't have to think about cookies at all. Like, that's Gorsuch and Native Americans. What did you think of how it went? Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned that. I walked down the hall to one of my partners who had clerked on the Supreme Court after the election. I walked on the Supreme Court afterwards and I'm like, look, I've already, and I, and just so folks know, I've argued now five cases in the Supreme Court and, you know, you go in with a game plan of what you're trying to do for the whole court and then you go in with a game plan of what you're trying to do with individual justices. If you are the lawyer for the United States and you are trying to say that you are going to disenfranchise and strip essentially citizenship from wide swaths of the population, the one thing you need to know about Justice Gorsuch, who otherwise could be your friend, right? I mean, Justice Gorsuch is one of the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court. He is usually in the three that when we refer to the three most conservative, he's one of those three. The only thing you have to make sure to tell him is that it's not going to negatively impact Native Americans, because he cares enormously about Native Americans. So, you know, like the solicitor general is sitting there or standing there asked by Justice Gorsuch, you know, does this affect Native Americans negatively? And the right answer, John Sauer, who's the solicitor general is, no, they're definitely citizens. Like they are definitely citizens. Like they will never negatively, never be impacted. But instead he hems and haws and says, I need to think about it. I'm thinking, dude, you don't got votes to spare. I mean, like, like, you know, how did it go? It went really badly for the president. I mean, you know, like you always with the caveat say you can't predict anything for sure, just based on the questions. But honestly, there are a lot of arguments where you can predict a lot for sure based on the questions. And this was one of those arguments. I mean, there are at least as I counted at least six votes for the president to lose. I if you put a gun to my head, I'd say there are eight votes for the president to lose. I think that justice justice justice Alito was solidly or seem by his questions to be in the side of the president. Beyond that, you know, it was it was a it was a rough rough sledding. I mean, I think Komi Komi Barrett was just Komi Barrett was not was pretty hostile. The chief was the chief was hostile. I think Justice Kavanaugh was looking for a statutory offer. But that statutory offer would still rule against the president. It would just basically say we don't need to decide as a constitutional question whether or not there's birthright citizenship as a statutory matter. There is. And so until Congress changes the law, we don't need to address this. So that would still be a loss for the president. And frankly, you know, Justice Thomas was not an it was not an easy one for for for the president side either. So like, could it be could it be seven to could it be eight one? Yeah, I think probably could it be six three? Sure. Maybe at the worst for our side, it's like five four with a couple of justices saying are not who actually. Don't dissent. It's like five two two where two of the justices say we don't need to decide the constitutional question because of the statutory matter matter. There's birthright citizenship. But but I I I don't see a world in which Donald Trump winds up winning that case. And I think that he knows it because as you know, he afterwards has been criticizing the Supreme Court. Yeah, he has a particular celebration dance, which I won't do for its profanity. But that truth social post afterwards was not the this went well for me. It was like Leonard Leo. Why did you recommend these jerks? By the way, as to your feed, I have to imagine you have probably the most interesting feed because yes, I suspect you follow a lot of the same accounts. I do. But I think as a professional matter, you probably have to also follow account. I definitely don't follow. No, it's definitely true. It's like the night and day, which is a known problem about like blue sky, right, where everyone like on blue sky, I'm a conservative. It's like wild. You know, but yes, I do have a blue pilled and a red pilled feed because I need to be able to predict what also my colleagues are going to say and like what their sources. You probably know more about what Jesse Waters thinks than I will ever know. It's a safer place for you, I would say, and probably results in lower therapy bills, though. I don't know what what you see on a legal basis is the stuff of nightmares. Like I can deal with, you know, people making points about how real men don't use straws or eat ice cream cones. But this the stuff the trenches that you're in is so disturbing. And one of those key planks and it links to the birthright citizenship case is something that Senator Ron Johnson said this morning on Maria Bartolomo show. And I want to play a clip and get your reaction to it. The plate. Let's make sure that we can, again, save this country, secure our elections, you know, secure our board. You know, I was disappointed the Supreme Court, the justices there. I mean, this is using the Constitution. You know, it's not a suicide pack. And unfortunately, the justices that they may maybe they're ruling will be on the law and on the Constitution. But you have to look at the bigger picture here. What is happening with China with the tourism birth, birthright citizenship tourism. This has been destroyed this country, you know, creating all these, you know, millions of voters. They will obviously not be voting in the best interests of America. So we have to understand exactly what the left is doing, what Congress China is doing. And we need to act now to prevent that. All roads lead to the Save America Act and this obsession with election security with no cases of fraud. What do you think that means for your work and for our elections to hear Ron Johnson saying that? Yeah, first of all, I think if you parse what he said, he says, you know, maybe the Supreme Court will rule on the law and on the Constitution. Well, he said Mark Elias is right. But they shouldn't do that. They shouldn't do that. They shouldn't do that. They should rule instead based on Chinese tourism, you know, where they come to the United States and have babies, right? So they should set aside the Constitution rule on that basis. So I got bad news for the senator. I think he reads the court the way I do, which is that they're going to rule on the law and the Constitution. And that is going to hand Republicans at feet. But I think, Jesse, you have you have drawn the line that I think too many people are missing, which is the connection between birthright, the birthright citizenship case and the SAVE Act and the SAVE America Act, which is the only thing that Donald Trump right now cares about, which is giving the him and and Republicans the tools to disenfranchise millions of American voters. And the reason why I think it's important to tie that to the Supreme Court decision is what is, you know, we keep pointing out, I keep pointing on others that one of the big losers in the SAVE Act would be people who would be people who have to prove their citizenship, including, for example, married women whose birth certificates don't match the name that they currently use. Right. And so we talk about that as a as a category. Well, how do you prove citizenship in this country? There are only two documents that really prove it other than naturalization papers. Okay. Number one is a valid U.S. passport. The second is an original or a certified birth certificate. But here's the thing, Jesse, if you don't have birthright citizenship. A birth certificate doesn't prove citizenship. Oh, right. And so that's why these two things I didn't even think about that. I mean, I knew about the passport and the birth certificate, but not the birthright citizenship application to it. Correct. Right. Like it all of a sudden allows challenges based on citizenship that where you're just presenting a birth certificate is now those unberstificates don't prove citizenship. Right. The fact that you were born in the United States and a hospital. Yeah. That form doesn't mean anything. And, you know, if you don't believe that that is where this is going, just how did we come to know Donald Trump as a political figure? Like, obviously, you and I are from New York. We we understood him to be sort of a grotesque character of the city in the 80s and the 90s. But how did we come to understand him as a political figure? It was saying when he said that that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and how did how did what happened when Barack Obama produced his birth certificate? What happened when the state of why he said this is his birth certificate? Donald Trump said it's not real. Right. Right. So so you have to understand that in the MAGA movement for Donald Trump and his supporters, compromising and undermining birth certificates as proof of citizenship is part of the critical thing that they want to do. Because once you've taken those off the table, now they can make judgments. Their own judgments as to which birth certificates are real, which birth certificates aren't real, which ones count, which ones don't count. And we will be having that fight as the next fight as a way to disenfranchise voters who they simply don't want to participate. I feel silly that I didn't even think about that. Like they were both evil track things, but I didn't make the connection as to what it would do for the Save America Act or whatever their next iteration of this. Was that part of Project 2025? Project 2035 doesn't make the connection I just made. I think to understand the reason why I make the connection, A, it's the area of law I practice in. That is a focal point. You're paid to make that connection. Yeah. The second is though, Jesse, I was very deeply involved at the time in fighting against the birther lies that Donald Trump was telling. And again, Donald Trump has never, Donald Trump's entire political career was based on the idea that birth certificates don't actually prove citizenship. And like it was aimed at Barack Obama, but that is where you wind up with the justices hearing this birthright citizenship case. It is where you wind up with the with the SAVE Act, proof of citizenship requirements and the limited number of ways to prove citizenship. And it is where to go back to the executive order and the lawsuit that we have filed. It is why the idea that that that Donald Trump has landed on as the key central tenant of this voter suppression plan is that the Department of Homeland Security will compile a list of who they believe are eligible U.S. citizens to vote. Like maybe you could ask some of your conservative friends on on the five. I am old enough to remember when it was conservatives who said they do not want the federal government compiling a list, a master list of all the citizens in the United States and giving the federal government that power. Well, that's what Donald Trump wants to do. And he wants to be able to do it because he wants to be able to call balls and strikes, not just between people who have birth certificates and don't, but within the category of people who do have birth certificates. He wants to be able to say these ones I don't trust these ones. I don't believe. I think the state of New York is run by communists. So, you know, none of the none of the birth certificates under Mayor Mondami's administration that are issued by the city of New York will count. Right. Like this is what he did with Hawaii. And I'm telling you it's what we're going to get here. I have kind of a maybe an annoying question, but on voter ID, because like it's very clear to save America Act. That's not a voter ID bill. I have been saying that on air and like honestly, they get pretty quiet about it because I think they understand the difference even though they continue to use the law. To use the language interchangeably to be like Democrats are against voter ID. And I say we're not against voter ID. Tons of states have voter ID laws. Jim Clyburn has been out there saying we're for voter ID. That's not what this is. And over 80% of Americans, no matter how you vote, believe in some voter ID to be able to cast your ballot. What is the argument against a federal standard or even just 50 states having some requirement for voter ID at the polls? And I mean my line in the standard, like if you can buy a gun, you should be able to use whatever you showed the person at a, you know, a gun show or a private seller to be able to do that. But like student IDs, driver's licenses, et cetera. Like can you explain that to me? Sure. So, you know, I'm only going to speak for myself here. I'm just going to say, like I litigate a lot of voting cases. I don't litigate them any ID cases. I litigate ID cases only when what they are trying to do is really pick and choose in a way to shape the electorate in unfair ways. So oftentimes what I'm litigating is where they are targeting particularly student IDs. And even within that, it's usually where they're targeting state issued student IDs, you know, and this bill, for example, does that, right? The Save America Act, as it began, by the way. I wrote about this on Democracy Dock. You know, if you go make a look at the history of the Save Act, it began as a message bill that Mike Johnson threw together because Marjorie Taylor Green was going to file, had filed a motion to vacate the chair that she was going to force a vote on. This is back in 2024. And he runs down tomorrow logo and does a press conference with Donald Trump and gets his blessing. And in exchange, he says, I'm going to, I'm going to put forward this bill on proof of citizenship. It had no ID requirement. The ID requirement doesn't come until the Save America Act, which is earlier this year. So it like its lineage isn't a voter ID bill either. And in that bill, it actually says you need, you know, state issued photo ID, except no state may allow the use of state issued college university IDs. And so I strongly object to that because like if the university, if Florida can issue an ID and it's issuing it through its university system, I don't understand why that's any less secure. Than any other ID that the state of Florida is. So, so here is where I land on the ID thing. The question is what is, what work is the ID doing? Like if the ID is simply proving that the person standing in front of you is the person they claim to be, then I think there are ways to solve that, including with ID laws. Like I think that, you know, there are ways to make sure that when Mark Elias goes to vote, he, the person standing in front of him is Mark Elias. But what, what quickly this devolves into on the Republican side is proving a whole bunch of stuff other than that. So I'll give you an example. Just yesterday, I sued Ron DeSantis over their new voter suppression bill. And in his signing, when he was doing his signing, he said, we are removing college IDs. Okay. State, again, state issued college IDs. We're removing these from the list because they don't prove residency. In other words, they, these, doesn't prove these students are residents of California. I'm sorry, Florida. Well, but here's the thing, like ID at the polls isn't supposed to prove residency. It's just supposed to prove identity. And you know what else doesn't prove residency? Jesse, a gun permit, you know, else doesn't prove residency. A U. S. passport, right? You're going to look at your U. S. passport. Your U. S. passport doesn't have your address on it. It just says you are a U. S. citizen. It's simply identifying you. And so if we wound up in a world in which Republicans wanted to have a serious discussion about ID, where we were just talking about how do we make sure the person standing in front of you is the person they say they are, then like, honestly, that's a conversation I'm happy to have. But then, for example, you wouldn't say that a driver's license from another state is not sufficient. Why wouldn't it be sufficient to prove ID, right? Like you do, does Florida not believe that the Texas driver's license proves that the person standing in front of them is who they say they are? Like, there would be an opportunity, for example, for people in nursing homes. This is something that, frankly, the folks on Fox talk about all the time, so I want to, like, address them head on. You know, they're like, why does in Minnesota, why are nursing home workers allowed to swear out an affidavit that says that the person who is voting is someone they care for and is who they say they are? That's a perfectly acceptable form of ID. I mean, who would know the identity of the person better than their caregiver if they are elderly and don't have a driver's license? I mean, I think what the folks at Fox and Conservatives are really saying is they don't think really old people in nursing homes should be allowed to vote, which is fine. Just say that. But don't say it's about ID because, like, there's no doubt that the resident who, like, lives in a nursing home, that their nurse knows what their identity is. And if they're swearing out an affidavit that says, I know Mr. Jones, I've cared for Mr. Jones for seven years, and this is Mr. Jones, like, there's no reason why that shouldn't be sufficient. So it's gotten very much tied up in a lot of misinformation by the right wing, and I would love to put an end to that. Yeah, I would love that too. And I also, I mean, the amount of groups that are targeted by either voter ID laws or citizenship laws, because there is the distinction, which I'm glad that you made, who are traditional Republican voters blows my mind. I mean, you talk about the married women, old people, like, where is a Republican victory without old people? And, you know, they are still high off 2024 with getting such a big chunk of the 18 to 29 year old vote. They vote at college, right? Like, you know, you're from wherever you go off to University of Wisconsin at Madison. And guess what? You want to vote in Wisconsin, but you can't because you're not from there or you didn't bring your documents with you because who's, I mean, honestly, whose mom still has their birth certificate like that, you know, in the laminated sheet. I use this example on air. It took me three trips to the DMV to get my real ID because I have two middle names. I didn't even change my last name. But my, my documents didn't match and I had to go pouring through my mom's files to find my original birth certificate. Right. And so people understand there are only five states in this country that a real ID can prove citizenship. In 45 states in this country, a real ID does not prove citizenship. So when Republicans say it's not a problem because just have a real ID driver's license, unless you are in one of the five states that borders Canada. Jesse, I have no idea why there's probably a fascinating backstory why it is the five states that border Canada have this allowance to prove citizenship. But understand that if you're in Alabama or Mississippi or Florida or Texas, your real ID does not prove that you are a citizen. It may prove that you're a legal, that you're legally in the country. But if you're a visa holder, you can get a real ID in most states. And so, you know, this is really just a lot of shell game in order to disenfranchise voters because to your point, Jesse, like, look, I was born in New York City. My wife was born in Ithaca. You know, we did a little bit of experiment and we're like, okay, what would it take to get a, you know, a original or a certified copy of a birth certificate? And I'm not here to hate on the state of New York. I mean, I love, you know, I still love New York. But like the vital records offices, which you probably know from having kids like these are not fast moving organizations. This is not like, this is not like you go to a website and you put in credit card number and outcomes document. This was a multi-week or I think months long exercise. Mark Elias, Democracy Docket. Everyone has to subscribe. This was perfect. Thank you for your time. Thank you. All right. Before we go, a reminder that not only is Raging Moderates five days a week, we're now available on sub-stack. Subscribers get ad-free episodes, which I know everyone loves. Livestreams and a place to connect with me and Scott and the rest of the community. Find us at ragingmoderates.prophedemeedia.com. And we've been nominated for a Webby. I told you this yesterday. I'm telling you today and I'm going to tell you tomorrow. We're super psyched about it in the News and Politics section. Head to vote.webbyawards.com and cast your vote. We also have the link in the show notes. It is complicated. We are telling them that it is complicated. They are making it too hard to vote like Republicans. That's all for this episode. Thank you so much for joining us today.
