tv Washington Journal Hans Von Spakovsky Allegra Chapman CSPAN February 10, 2019 7:04pm-8:01pm EST
political events continues on monday night as president trump texas for al paso make america great again rally. >> our sunday roundtable is focusing on hr one. join us as allegra chatman. she is director of voting and elections for common cause. thank you for being with us. let me begin. hr-one 20 include the following, making election day a national holiday, expanding automatic voter registration, increasing access to early voting and vote by mail and restores the voting rights act. what is wrong with this? guest: there were a lot of provisions that are unconstitutional. there were a lot that are redundant that cover areas of laws already covered and in many ways, the federal eyes is an micro manages the election
administration process, taking the of -- taking away the ability of the state to make their own decisions on how elections will be administered and how they are going to make choices on things like redistricting and otherwise. host: would a uniform system for a national election like the president be suitable? hans: i don't think so. the framers of the constitution put together a system in which they in essence allowed election administration to the state and there is good reason. a lot of people should think about the fact that, do you really want to federalize the election process so that the party in the white house controls federal elections? i don't think that is a good idea. host: allegra chapman, your view on this bill. allegra: i disagree. i think we have to remember that this is a very constitutional bill. the election clause article of
the constitution grants congress huge powers when it comes to how elections are going to be run. when it comes to whether portions of this bill are in other parts of the law, redundancy when it comes to democracy reform is not our problem. what is our problem is the fact that we don't have a strong enough democracy now and that is why this for the people act is important to remind people what this bill is. it will do just that, save our democracy, and it does it by several different ways. it ensures that every eligible american can show up and vote, have his or her vote count and will make government accountable to the people in a way that has not been the case for a long time. it will restore ethics to the government and ensure transparency across the board. it will get rid of the corrupting influence of money in politics and americans are desperate for this kind of change. host: the idea of making
election day a national holiday. what are the benefits and what are the downsides? allegra: i just see benefits. i was working on an election protection hotline for the midterms. we got calls from all across the country from people waiting in lines for hours, in states where people are permitted a couple hours of work time in order to go and vote. people were standing in line for hours. there was a big resurgence for this midterm. we had some of the highest turnouts since world war i. that is an exciting prospect. people want to participate in this democracy. yet when we see long lines or people having to encounter broken machines, worrying influences,ide russian interference is going to mess with the system, not showing up and realizing that even though they registered to vote earlier, now they have been
axed off of the list because some of the states were taking part in purging practices. making election day a holiday and ensuring everyone can show up is the right thing to do. host: we welcome our listeners on c-span radio and sirius xm. i'm going to guess you disagree. hans: i disagree with a lot. the idea that this entire bill is constitutional, there were numerous provisions that are not. there is a provision that says that all states will have to restore the rights of felons to vote the moment they are out of prison, regardless of whether they have paid a court-ordered restitution to the victims, regardless of what kind of crime they committed. the problem with that is that that is a decision that the constitution specifically gives to the states to make. the 14th amendment says the state can decide when and how to
restore the rights of felons to vote. if the folks of a particular state like florida, if they want to make the decision about that, that is up to them. congress can't override the constitutional provision with a statute. host: but the idea of a national holiday, saying half the day -- have the day off as it is your right to vote, is that a bad idea? hans: it is not going to have the effect people think it will. take think it will have higher turnout. that has not been what has happened in europe. surveysyou can look at that the census bureau does after elections. the biggest reason people say they don't vote is not because they don't have time to get to thepolls, particularly in -- in two thirds of the states. the reason they don't go as they are not interested in elections, they don't don't -- they don't think it will make a difference. the thought that it will somehow
increase turnout is just not going to happen. is including this from maryland democrat elijah cummins. tier is what he said about the legislation. -- here is what he said about the legislation. [video clip] >> one of the things that is me chills whenve i read it was the 2016 opinion of the fourth circuit court of appeals. acting notund here, like it is an inalienable right , and it isto vote something that he said that is can argue back and forth all we want.
he talked about the legislature down there in north carolina. this is a quote from the fourth circuit, federal judges. --y said before acting before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use by race of a number of voting practices. upon receipt of the race data, the general assembly enacted , youlation that restricted are talking about inalienable rights? they restricted voting and registration in five different ways. all of which disproportionately affected african-americans. the fourthn to say, circuit, the federal court said it, said in response to claims
that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the state offered only meager justifications. the new provisions target african-americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inept remedies for the problems assertively justifying them and in fact -- cures for problems that did not exist. host: that was congressman elijah cummings. allegra chapman, your reaction. allegra: i am glad you played that clip because it is chilling what is going on in this country today. since 2010, 25 states have put more measures on the books when it comes to voting acts
including some of these id provisions that aim to restrict the vote from black voters and tino voters and also absolutely have the disenfranchising effect the representative was talking about. the shelbyand decision eviscerated a lot of the protections we have in the voting rights act, we have seen states across the country unleash these photo id bills that have the aim of discriminating and we also have seen strong election reforms being cut from the books because legislators know that these laws do have an impact on getting people to come out and vote. what this hr-1 would do is ensure that we are bringing back the full protection of the voting rights act, that we are starting -- stopping states from participating in this kind of discrimination. host: i want to get your reaction to what the senate
republican leader, mitch mcconnell had to say about this bill on the floor. [video clip] >> their bill would make election day a new paid holiday for government workers. and create an additional brand-new paid leave benefit for up to six days for any federal bureaucrat who decides they would like to hang out at the polls during any election. just what america needs, another paid holiday and a bunch of government workers being paid to go out. i assume our colleagues on the other side, on their other -- on their campaign. this is the democrat plan to restore democracy? a brand-new week of paid vacation for every federal employee who would like to hover around while you cast her ballot? a washington-based taxpayer subsidized clearinghouse for political campaign funding? grab.r
this is smelling more and more exactly like what it is. host: is the senate republican leader correct in what he said? hans: what he said was about it being a holiday, yes, and it would give admiral employees the ability to go work in local polls for six days. could i respond to allegra on voter id? that is just a myth propagated by the left that voter ids keeps people out of the polls. we know that is not true. there have been voter id laws in states like georgia and indiana for more than a decade. we have a decade's worth of turnout data showing that is not true. with regard to that fourth circuit opinion, it is important to point out that it was a three-judge panel and that opinion was actually out of line with other federal courts of appeals. very quickly, the north carolina voter id law had a big exemption in it.
the exemption said if you showed up at your polling place without an id, as long as you filled out and signed a simple form that said you had a reasonable impediment that kept you from getting an id, you could vote. south carolina has that exact same law. that was upheld by a three-judge court and has been in place since 2012 without any problems. a different panel of the fourth circuit upheld virginia's voter id law which did not have that kind of exemption. , two obama judges and a clinton judge, did not reflect the actual facts and the evidence in the case. host: i want to come back to the issue of redistricting and let our audience know that common cause and the heritage foundation are represented at the table. first up is don from wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning. i happen to be a farmer in the
midwest, and so elections are the first tuesday of november. we are in the middle of corn harvest. who is going to come out and do my work so i can plan today's to be will to go off and vote and be able to do the things you think everyone should have is the result of a holiday? the left movement is an effort to grab resources. money is just an exchange. , have worked on this farm growing up since i was six years , doing all the things that it took to be able to generate and you think you are going to come and take the resources that i sacrificed my whole life -- my kids did not go do all the fancy things that everyone else took off, wearing fancy clothes to school because we reinvested back in the farm. if you come over my land it will be over my dead potty. host: allegra chapman.
i don't think this is a left or right issue and has nothing to do with taking resources from anybody. to farming,s americans are appreciative of everything they are putting into this country. this bill is not going to require anybody to leave their work. it ensuress do is that every american in this country has the eligibility to participate and it undoes a lot of corrupting influences that we have in this country. americans are desperate for this. 70% say they have little to no faith in government. over 80%, americans of all political stripes. they want to get rid of the corrupting influence of money in politics. that is what this bill does. it addresses the concerns that americans have across-the-board. why are americans so upset? look at the political state of play.
states across this country trying to cut access to the ballot box. we see ethical violations, we see failure for campaigns to be transparent about where their money is coming from. g toee politicians cowin make industry, big pharma, to build up their coffers so that they can run a campaign. where does that leave the rest of americans, including farmers and people across the country who are engaging in everyday work? it leaves us on the sidelines. hr-1 is a way, a comprehensive package to make sure that everybody is going to be included in this democracy and that government is finally going to be held accountable to the people. host: allegra chapman, the director of voting and elections at common cause and hans von spakovsky of the heritage foundation, serving as a senior legal fellow and also is the counting?""who's
books to tom in richmond, virginia -- let's go to tom in richmond, virginia. caller: -- i believe the schools are closed for that reason. my question is, why don't we have election day on a saturday? host: how about just holding elections on columbus day, that is pretty close, maybe move it back a week to a saturday vote or columbus day. hans: if people think that is a good idea, i don't have a problem with that. i am just saying i don't think it needs to be a holiday. folder open for 12 hours in most states. for those who can't make it to the polls on election day, every state has absentee ballots. allegra paints this picture of voting as if it is, all of these
terrible barriers across the country. that is not true. it is easier to register and vote in this country today than ever before. , you canstering register when you get your drivers license or applying for welfare, or schools or libraries. you can simply download a one-page form off the internet, fill it out and mail it in. the idea that it is difficult to register or vote is just not the case. host: the other part of the bill , i want to go to redistricting because this is from npr, to settle the controversy over redistricting, the bill would take away the power of state legislatures to draw congressional districts and have an independent commission do it instead. way, presumably, local politicians could no longer gerrymandered districts to help their party -- gerrymander districts to help their party. allegra: california and arizona are doing it.
we should set up these independent redistricting commissions so the politicians cannot rig the system to secure their vote. politicians have to earn american votes, no matter where they are. they have to go down and meet with americans and figure out exactly what it is they want and respond to that. once elected, they cannot just rig the system so they can retain their seat. being see gerrymanders committed by both republicans and democrats. on march 25, the supreme court is going to take up this issue. in north carolina, it involves republican gerrymandering. whoever is doing it, it is not right and it rigs the system. hr-1's right to include that in this bill. i also want to make a point hans aboutesponse to registration in this country. the fact remains that registration was a barrier at the beginning.
the jimto ever that in crow days, the purpose of registration was to keep certain people from participating in this country. there is still a registration barrier between people of high income and low income, between people of color and white people. what we do know about some of the registration forms -- reforms that states have passed across the country and i am happy to say that a lot of red, purple and blue states are doing this is once you automatically , you see those participation barriers break down. you see people showing up, and it has an effect across the board, including for voters of color who for so long were kept out of the process. host: wind you disagree? hans: i did -- why do you disagree? you register people
automatically from different state databases, you are not only going to have duplicative registrations but if you register folks from the dmv, you are probably going to be accidentally registering noncitizens. canada has had automatic voter registration for a long time and if you read articles in canada, you will read articles about how they worry about their turnout declining. registration is not the issue for turnout. if the people, that provision in this bill is very antidemocratic. decidepeople of arizona that they would rather have an independent redistricting commission rather than the legislature doing it, they can make that decision and in fact that is what they did.
this bill takes that choice away from the residence of each state. it says that every state in the country, the legislatures can no longer do redistricting. the folks of other states may not want to do that. why is congress taking that choice away from the residence ?nd forcing them this bill down to the smallest details tells states how they do that. , buty likes gerrymandering there are ways of trying to fix that, short of establishing a commission made up of appointed unanswerable to voters. legislators can be voted out. members of a redistricting commission cannot be voted out.
host: this is what the old congressional district map looked like in pennsylvania. you can see there was clearly gerrymandering involved and how it was carved out, down to neighborhoods. one of the problems that has come up is that there is less incentive for parties, members of congress to compromise. they are more worried about a primary. if you had more competitive districts, with that help our system? allegra: absolutely. hans: perhaps it would, but congress does not have the authority to force each state to say this is how you're going to do redistricting. use a resident of that state don't have a choice. this is the only method you have , rather than allowing the residents of the state to decide how they want redistricting done, what the parameters of that will be, how that will be accomplished. this takes that ability away.
that is why i say it is antidemocratic. allegra: the problem with that is that the residents of the state don't get a say. once politicians are gerrymandering, they don't get a say. the legislature did not want them to do it. the legislature went to court and it went all the way to the u.s. supreme court. the folks there did it through the referendum process. yes the residents of the state do have the ability. has aa: to legislature vested interest in not having one of those institutions. this is antidemocratic because congress is forcing the residents of the state to do it this way. allegra: once we do have these independent redistricting commissions in place, think about how this opens up the political field. youou know that chances are may win or lose this election by a razor thin margin, no matter your party, are you going to sit
back comfortably and just expect that you are going to win your seat or are you going to go out and meet with people, no matter whether they are democrat or republican? you are going to go out and meet with people in order to get that vote. the problem is that a lot of politicians, especially in these heavily gerrymandered districts are not doing that. as a result, they don't know what their constituents want. instead they are responding to whoever the big pocket donor is that happens to ensure their state is theirs. arguing inu are favor of redistricting commissions, that is fine. you are avoiding the issues which is that this bill has washington, d.c. taking the choice away from the residence of a particular state. they can't make their own decisions on this. you are forcing them to go on the path you think is right. host: let's go to pennsylvania on our republican line. caller: good morning.
host: go ahead. caller: can you hear me? host: we can, please go ahead. caller: what i am going to talk -- t is [indiscernible] host: we will move on to dennis joining us from williamsport, pennsylvania. caller: i would like to comment. i'm glad you showed pennsylvania. with the first or second most gerrymandered state in the
nation -- we are the first or second most gerrymandered state in the nation. we had three congressional 13-5, 13-5, 13-5. the supreme court finally had enough of it and changed the districts. it is now nine and nine in a state that republicans very seldom get 50% of the vote in. they also rigged local elections through the state legislature and hold a huge advantage and again in the state, they very seldom get 50% of the vote. i would like to comment on your voterest that just said id laws don't cut down on participation. this date passed a voter id law in 2012 which was later overruled unconstitutional by the state supreme court. 890he state's own figures,
5000 registered voters in the state would not have been able to vote under that legislation. the speaker of the pennsylvania house, a republican, was caught on tape gloating to his friends how they passed this law so republicans can win elections in the state. host: we will get a response. hans: those numbers were not correct and the state had a whole provision put in that provided a free id for anyone who did not have the. you can look at the experience of almost a dozen other states. georgia, indiana, tennessee, south carolina, all of whom have had voter id laws in place for quite a long time. we have the actual statistical turnout data from those states including georgia which breaks it down by race, and it does not prevent individuals from voting. the pennsylvania
id law was found unconstitutional by a state court. that is not the case in those other states and those other states, common cause actually filed a lawsuit against it and lost in both federal and state court. those laws have been in place for more than a decade and the evidence is that turnout went up, including of racial minorities. in the last election in georgia, they reached a record high in voter registration in the state and they had record turnout. allegra: let me reply to this. there are some inaccuracies here. most of the states that have voter id laws do not have this exception that will say we will grant you a free id. wisconsin did do that but as we saw the 2016 election, they did not make good on that promise. of thousands of voters
were precluded from voting. that has puttate in an id law has put in a provision providing a free id. you can check that. allegra: that is like saying the sky is green in cincinnati. hans: every state provides a free id in the states that have one. allegra: they don't. hans: yes they do. allegra: for those who don't have access to photo id, which research shows 11% of the country. that is a shocking statistic for a lot of people because most of us have our ids. we use them day today. i had to show my to get into the c-span building. the fact that 11% does not have access to the documents in order theet the id, these are people who are the lowest income in our society, disproportionally represented. [talking over each other] allegra: because republicans
across the country and unfortunately it is republicans who are doing this, because i will say that during the 1980's and 90's, i think both republicans and democrats agreed that the vote was sacristan -- sacrosanct. they authorize the voting rights act that guaranteed a lot of these protections. seenis why we have republicans up until 50 years ago saying that yes, the vote should be accessible to all -- 15 years ago saying that yes, the vote should be accessible to all. because the republican party has this fear and this worry that because of the change of demographics, there is going to be a shift in power, they are doing whatever they can to create the electorate of their choosing. that is what these voter id laws do. they keep people from showing up.
way, republicans and state legislatures can create the electorate of their choosing and secure their seats. host: i will come back to you in a moment. i want to share what congressman jim jordan said. [video clip] >> professor smith, does hr-1 require states to offer early voting? >> yes. >> does hr-1 require states to offer no excuse absentee voting? >> yes. paid leave1 require for paul -- for government workers to be poll workers? >> yes. require taxpayers to finance campaigns? >> definitely. >> does hr-1 require taxpayers to pay for the campaigns of candidates they oppose? for example if i were contribute $10 to the reelection
campaign of the president, the folks on the other side of the aisle would collectively contribute six dollars or something like that. require states to have same-day registration for voters? >> i believe it does. >> does hr-1 require automatic registration? >> i believe it does. >> does hr-1 require states to register 16-year-olds? >> i don't know. >> it does. does hr-1 require election day be a federal holiday if you work for the federal government? >> it does. >> does hr-1 require outing of donors? if you give to a campaign, you permit that through disclosure, you will be outed to the public. >> a great many provisions require a tremendous amount of outing. >> does hr-1 make -- a partisan organization? >> yes. it will take -- let's say mitch
mcconnell and ted cruz are the republicans and independents is bernie sanders. that is supposed to be balanced and that is how it would work. that is what the majority intends for it to be in 2021, something like that. and bradleyrdan smith is a former republican member of the federal election commission. a quick comment. of thehe partisanship federal election commission they are talking about is true. right now, the fec has six members and for folks who don't know, the fec is the federal agency that enforces our federal campaign finance laws. ofre are three commissioners the republican party, three commissioners of the democratic party. it takes for commissioners to vote to approve -- it takes four commissioners devote to improve -- to approve actions.
both parties have to agree to go after someone who is violating the law and that prevents that agency from engaging in partisan enforcement actions. this bill would change it to a five-member commission, three votes to take any action, which means that one political party, whichever party is in the white house, if they have those three seeds, can use the agency as a partisan enforcement tool to go after members of the opposing party. i am a former member of the fec and i think it is important that you have a bipartisan agreement in these kinds of enforcement actions because campaign-finance law is an area where your enforcing the law in a first amendment area and political speech and political activity is a very protected right. friend has been
waiting patiently in new york. caller: good morning c-span. i think you and your guest very much and always -- as always, i think the people behind the scenes who keep c-span on every single day. i would like to comment on that silly word inalienable. say, 42 years ago was a very good day, when i and six others were delivered from a plane crash coming out from from a harvard-cornell hockey game and we crashed a half-mile before the airport. i am thankful every single day.
on this issue, sir, i can't see you because i'm on the radio but i just want to say i have been working on this for 50 years. i went to occupied ireland and you could not vote unless you own property and it was against the law to own property. cameat time, my relatives from a minority and they said you are irish just because the british are in charge does not make you less of who you are. inalienable means human rights. fromve our human rights our first breath out of the
mothers will to our last breath before the two. we are talking about a system -- before the tomb. we are talking about a system that is almost looking like 50 franchises plus and i mean puerto rico and the virgin islands and guam. we are not looking at the 21st century. host: we are going to stop you there because we are short on time. thank you for your story and your call. allegra: and i make a quick response? if we had bipartisan agreement that would be great but we have not. it has been gridlocked for years. hans: that is not true. allegra: the commissioners cannot agree. hans: i was on the fec as a commissioner. that is simply not true. allegra: there is nobody there to enforce the law. we need a functioning fec. hans: you can look at the votes on the fec. in enforcement matters, there is
virtual unanimity. enforcement matter votes are 6-0, occasionally 5-0. we did hundreds of votes while i was there. allegra: how long ago was that? hans: almost unanimity on enforcement action. the places where they would have split votes was not on enforcement actions. the split votes were own interpretations of regulation. that was because a lot of the fec, a lot of the law that the fec enforces is frankly confusing and ambiguous. the way it would divide down and the reason there would be a conflict was because when a regulation was confusing or ambiguous, democratic commissioners tended to vote in favor of the government, and so the public would lose or the lose.ate would
republican said of the law is not clear, we cannot enforce it, so the vote for the republicans would be if it was a confusing regulation, the government loses. anyone can look at the actual numbers of votes and anyone who doubts me can do that and you will find that a fast majority of cases, -- that in a fast majority of cases -- in a vast majority of cases, it is often unanimity. host: -- allegra: i agree with that. congress has the power of do -- the power to do this. but congress has used this power in the past before. people agreed that the right to vote was sacrosanct and we had to protect it across the country and that law worked for decades. we saw improvements across the country until we saw in 2013,
the gutting of a lot of those protections. we are in a state where our democracy is floundering. people across the country matter the party feel that way and congress needs to take bold action. it needs to take this kind of reform right now. in the 2018 the terms, we saw a new wave of individuals, some people of color, more women, people of different faiths and backgrounds, representing their constituents in congress. they wrote a letter to their future colleagues saying once we get here, we need to do something about democracy. i am hearing from people in my state, saying i don't feel as though my voice counts, i don't feel as though my voice is heard by people in congress, i feel as though special interests are trumping the rest of us and it is absolutely true.
unless we take this bold move to restore american democracy, to ensure that every voice counts and that every eligible merit -- eligible american is participating, to make sure that those in office are abiding by ethics laws and make sure we are getting rid of this corrupting influence of money in politics that keeps politicians and elected officials beholden to special interests and not the people that they are supposed to be representing, then this country is going to go down the tubes. we have this opportunity. the watergate babies did it in the 70's, and we can do it again. every member of congress should be behind this. host: allegra chapman with common cause and hans von spakovsky with heritage, this tweet from senator chuck schumer saying why are republicans always afraid of making it easier for americans to vote? darrell is joining us in tennessee, democrats line. caller: how are you doing?
host: good morning, we are fine. once you register to vote, you are basically registered to life -- register for life. my experiences -- when i went to vote at local elections, they asked for my id. the number of the top did not match the numbers -- i asked the , why is why is this there a voting right of my voter card does not match -- the numbers are different. make a quicki point about the registration issue? when this gentleman says that when you are registered, you are if life, that could be true you continued to live where you always have lived. here is one of the problems that
we see some states engaging and. people have been registered but then they have been unfairly purged from the registration rolls if they miss one or two elections. and other secretaries of state are doing is that if an individual who is registered to vote happens to miss one or two elections for whatever reason, then they become targeted, they get placed on a list that the state will then take steps to purge from that list. in some instances, some people are not getting noticed that they have been purged. they believe that once they are registered, they are registered and will show up at polling places and realize even though they have been registered in the past and even though they voted before and want to participate, they feel that is both their right and their duty, they are being told you can't because the secretary of state engaged in a
practice to keep you from showing up. unfortunately the supreme court did not see it that way, it did not prevent the congress from putting in hr-1 language that says once states are automatically registering individuals to vote, they cannot then engage in the unfair purging practices. congress has a right to do it. host: another tweet from the senate republican leader. effort tofar left rewrite the rules of american politics to benefit the democrats and their friends. hans: i am afraid that is correct. the intent of these rules is to manipulate election rules from washington to benefit one particular book -- political party and make our system more
insecure. i have to disagree with allegra on something. the idea that states are just removing people is just not true. there are strict rules, with notice requirements under both the national voter registration act and the help america vote act. to states are following those to the letter. -- states dot if make mistakes and if by error somebody has been removed or , tod to the inactive roles say they are unable to vote is not true. the help america vote act put in a provision into federal law that if you show up to a polling place and you are not on the registration, but you assert that you are eligible to vote and you registered, you get to vote with a provisional ballot. election officials are tasked under federal law, after
election day, to investigate that. i was a local election official, we would occasionally have problems with that. notntimes it was dmv properly forwarding voter registration to election officials. andould investigate those if in fact it turned out there was administrative error, that person's vote was counted. the idea that people are not going to be able to vote through administrative error is not true. states are following that law because in the entire eight years of the obama administration, the only filed one lawsuit anywhere across the country against a local jurisdiction that was not following that provisional ballot. host: let me go to gail in georgia. republican line. caller: good morning. i have been listening to the program and i am very upset as to the young lady that is apparently a democrat and a liberal the claims she is so
concerned about voter suppression. the point i want to make is that everyone is required to have a valid id if they go to the doctor, if they have any banking. any type of business you have to have a valid id. our is only protecting process to make sure that people are legitimate citizens, that they are not dead and it is disturbing that people just want to accept someone's word without any proof of id. point aboutthat most people using voter id in their daily transactions, -- photo id in their daily transactions, i understand that. i get why people feel initially that you should also have to show an id when you vote. here is the problem. the right to vote is a constitutional guarantee.
anything that infringes upon that including if you are requiring someone to show id which they don't have is not going to fly. secondly, what we know to be true is that the sort of fraud that people are concerned about, that photo id would prevent from happening simply does not occur. bush's department of justice look into this issue. they did not find a problem. the department of justice under president obama look into this. they did not find a problem. but we do know to be the problem is that id laws have a disenfranchising affect. hans was talking about the decision coming down from north carolina and it is true. what the fourth circuit court of appeals found was that
legislators in the state got information to find out which races had access to which ids. ,hen they learned what they did then they put into the laws a requirement that ids be produced by the ones the whites had greater access to. when you have a disenfranchising thousandsndreds of were precluded from showing up and participating in elections because of that put her id law that had a disenfranchising affect. the same thing happened in texas with the fifth circuit court of appeals. arguably one of the most conservative courts in the land found that the texas id law, with permitted citizens gun registration to vote but not students with student ids from state universities, it precluded
600,000 registered eligible voters from participating in elections. the courts are finding what we know to be true, that these laws in fact keep people from showing up. host: just a few minutes left. you will each have time to respond. let's go to randall in stevensville, independent line. the first thing i would do is get that thing out of november. that is in the middle of flu season. let's get it back to labor day and make it three days. where going to bring up president's day and make it the day after labor day. let's take four days and go back and fish out columbus day. let's have us a party.
they take 30 days off in europe. let's take four days off. vatuld reach into a big like when they did lottery numbers with president next and. i can call anywhere in america in six months and say how was that vote turned in? host: thanks for the call. do you want to respond? hans: there were a lot of folks that over the past few years pushed the idea of internet voting or voting over the phone. the problem with all kinds of ideas like that is that everyone who is studied this including the national science foundation has warned against it because they say that the internet and that whole process is so
vulnerable and is such a security risk that it is a bad idea. everybody on both sides agree on that. host: you agree on something, breaking news. [laughter] forcethe very first task that looked at this was in california and on the task force were all of these computer scientists from silicon valley. they thought going into this, this would be a great idea. ,he scientists themselves experts on computers and the internet came out and said this is a very bad idea because of the security vulnerabilities. host: i am going to give each of you a minute, why you support this bill and why you oppose it. the people-1, for act, this is what we need to restore the democracy that america deserves. americans feel disconnected from their politics.
-- they feelthose as if those in power are not listening. if we can pass this bold initiative, and it is one of the boldest democracy reform proposals we have seen in decades, then we can restore faith in american government. we can get people participating from across the board, all political stripes, and make sure that they are the ones who are dictating how this country is run, that they are the ones putting people into power, accountable to their needs and we can see a thriving democracy that is guaranteed to us on paper. it will not be signed and -- it will not be passed in the senate or signed by the president. is this more about 2021? hans: i think it is important we are talking -- allegra: i think it is important that we are talking about it now. it is disappointing to hear that it is almost a foregone conclusion that this is not going to go through the senate.
i would think that every member, every senator would be in favor of ensuring that every american can show up and participate. host: we will give you the last word. hans: there are some bills proposed by members of congress that are unconstitutional. there are some that are bad there are some better back policy, and there are others that are redundant and other areas. moreover, it is a way of trying nationalized and elections to get washington, d.c. and the federal government power over the writing of elections. we have the most decentralized election system of any that isy, and delivering it i think that was a it keeps theo then party in control of the white house from controlling the elections and potentially manipulating them.
it would make our elections more insecure, and it is antidemocratic, as i have said before. it takes away the ability of the states to make decisions. host: >> c-span's washington journal, live with issues that impact you. coming up, brokaw's, michael bennet. to mark miller will be on talk about vision legislative efforts to preserve social security. c-span'so watch washington journal, live at some :00 eastern on monday morning. join the discussion. >> here is a look at what is coming up tonight on c-span. q and that is next with helen andrus. the managing editor of magazine. examiner she is discussing her recent article about online shaming.
at 9:00, prime minister's questions from the house of commons. journalat, a washington segment announcer: this week on q&a, helen andrews discusses her first things magazine essay on online shaming, called "shame storm. " of 2019, youuary wrote for first things magazine something called "shame storm." what is