Agree to Disagree: KY’s Michael Adams on Trump’s comments about ‘nationalizing’ elections | Opinion
Welcome back to Agree to Disagree, in which I discuss topics with people on all sides of the political spectrum.
Last week, President Donald Trump doubled down on his desire to nationalize elections because, basically, he believes any time a Republican loses, particularly when he loses, there must be election fraud. As someone who takes Trump seriously and literally these days, I decided to talk to our statewide expert on elections, Republican Secretary of State Michael Adams, who provided back and forth with me via email.
Secretary Adams, thanks for talking to me. But it’s not enough to say the Constitution gives sole power over elections to states. Tell me why I should or shouldn’t be worried about the midterm elections.
Michael Adams: What, me worry? I’ve seen, and lived, it all on this. If we’ve proved anything the past six years, it’s that our election system is resilient, run by people with integrity who follow the law — and, critically, that when it comes to Kentucky elections, our voters trust their election officials — me, but more important, their county clerks and poll workers — more than they trust what they hear or see from other sources. All our improvements to Kentucky’s election process the past six years wouldn’t matter if our voters didn’t trust them, and utilize them.
Linda Blackford: Presumably, Kentucky will not get what most people are worried about — ICE agents at polling places or FBI agents seizing ballot boxes — because we are a reliably red state. And Kentucky has made all sorts of upgrades, such as paper ballots and early voting. But let’s go back: Why did the Founding Fathers put elections under state instead of federal control in the Constitution?
MA: Because they were geniuses! For one thing, there wasn’t much of a federal government in 1789, and in an era before mass communications, or even rail travel, it would not have been feasible for a federal agency to administer such localized, hands-on functions. Also, coming out of a heated constitutional convention with real regional differences on full display, it made the most sense for states to handle this and do it their way. It still does. It wasn’t long ago that a core belief of conservatism was that the closer a level of government is to you, the better it will be, because it’s likelier to know your needs, and it’s easier for you to hold it accountable.
LB: NYT columnist Jamelle Bouie and others have pointed out that it’s not helpful to catastrophize about elections ... the president cannot stop a governor from being seated after a state election, for example. But Trump is extremely concerned about the midterm elections, because a Democratic House could jam up his plans considerably. That’s why he persuaded Texas to redistrict in between censuses. So let’s say there’s a close U.S. House race somewhere (not Kentucky, obviously). What’s to stop Trump from getting the FBI to march in, take all the ballots in that race (as he recently did in Georgia) and proclaim the winner he wants?
MA: This is very far-fetched, and in answering I’m not acknowledging it’s a likely hypothetical. I can’t speak to what other states’ laws are, but presumably there would be challenges brought; and as I found both times I ran as a Republican, the Democrats are very well-funded. Their litigation budget is limitless. The swing districts are largely in blue states with Democratic attorneys general and elected prosecutors, and they would join in. Bottom line is, due process would play out.
LB: I have thought a lot of things were far-fetched — the insurrection of Jan. 6, the pardoning of Jan. 6 insurrectionists, etc. — and yet they keep happening. My last two questions are what do you think about the SAVE Act? And I assume it’s very unhelpful to have the president constantly question our electoral system. What do you want people to know about it?
MA: The Senate hasn’t taken it up 10 months after the House passed it. Even if they suddenly were to take interest, it has no chance of overcoming a filibuster unless significantly reworked. Even if every Republican senator supports it, which I doubt, seven Democratic senators are needed for passage. The bill is not going to be approved by Congress unless the various concerns about it are addressed. My hope, but not my prediction, is it could be a vehicle for bipartisan cooperation resembling what we’ve done in Kentucky – enhanced security and more funding.
LB: What about the second part of my question, is it unhelpful when Trump constantly talks about election fraud that is largely nonexistent?
MA: Yes. It was also very unhelpful when Hillary Clinton lied about Kentucky engaging in voter suppression. We got so many angry out-of-state calls, some of them life-threatening, that it functionally shut down our customer service — helping Kentucky voters safely vote in a pandemic — for days. The hellstorm my staff and I had to deal with from that was far worse than anything we’ve ever gotten from the far right. I would encourage every person with a followership —politician, celebrity, influencer or otherwise — to be responsible and fact-based.
LB: Have the feds requested or been given our voter rolls?
MA: There has been no development on this front since my interview with Austin Horn in December. We have provided the public file, as indisputably required by federal law, but we have not provided the additional, non-public information fields: voters’ social security numbers and driver’s license numbers.
