Preparing For Trump’s Next “Big Lie,” with the Election Lawyer Marc Elias
27:19 Share

This is The Political Scene, and I'm David Remnick. In the firehose of outlandish statements bursting out of Donald Trump, like Mexico sending Hanum Elector to the United States or Kamala Harris becoming black just recently, well, you might have missed something like this. You don't have to vote. Don't worry about voting. The voting, we got plenty of votes. You got to watch election night. You know, it used to be election day, election night. Now it's election month.

Now it's election period. Some of these things go on for 53 days. We've got plenty of votes because in Trump's view, he's always the winner and the election is always rigged. In 2016, he said it was rigged until he won it. He claimed the 2020 election was stolen as he was desperately attempting to steal it. Now, right up to the January 6th insurrection, Trump's main strategy for denying his loss in 2020 was to

was a barrage of legal challenges. For Democrats fighting off those challenges, the tip of the spear was an attorney named Mark Elias. He was so good, winning virtually every case that Trump's team brought, that even Steve Bannon speaks of him with a sort of admiration. Now Mark Elias is working for Kamala Harris's campaign, and despite

All his past victories, he is really concerned about 2024. Election-denying officials are in power in many of the swing states. Mark Elias fears that the assault on the democratic process this time around could be much more effective. In 2020...

Donald Trump did not really have a plan for the post-election. You know, Donald Trump, I think, thought he was going to win the election. And when you looked at the actual execution of their post-election campaign,

plan such as it was or their litigation, it was pretty haphazard. I mean, you know, we were talking about Rudy Giuliani holding press conferences in, you know, the parking lot of landscaping companies. And one of the things I warn people about is that 2024 is not the year of Rudy Giuliani, you know, that already in the pre-election, the quality of the lawyering. No more streaks of hair dye coming down the cheek during tense press conferences. Right.

Correct. And so I think, you know, we should all expect that they are more competent than they are before. And they're also also Donald Trump is more desperate than he was before. He's more desperate than he was before. How come? Well, you know, in 2020, he was in the White House. He wanted to stay in the White House. But, you know, being ex-president is not the worst thing in the world. And even still, he was willing to instigate a violent insurrection.

Now he faces the prospect of four criminal indictments, two of which are in federal court. I think he believes that his ticket to personal freedom rests on him winning the White House and at least having the two federal cases dismissed. And maybe, you know, he's able to do some magic with the state cases. So other than getting rid of Rudy Giuliani and that level of talent or non-talent, what would they do?

So I think the biggest thing we have seen them do is to drive out of election administration good election officials and good workers and replace them in many instances with bad election officials and election deniers.

So in 2020, Donald Trump wound up calling, along with the chair of the Republican National Committee, kind of an extraordinary thing if you think about it, the sitting president and a party chair, called two local county certifiers in Wayne County, Michigan, to try to get them to violate their oaths of office by refusing to certify the election. That failed, okay? In 2022, we saw in Cochise County, Arizona,

the county tried to refuse to certify the election results. In 2022, in Pennsylvania, we saw Republican election deniers trying to refuse to certify election results. And in most of those instances, litigation wound up being the tool to compel them to certify. That is a suboptimal state of affairs going into a national general election. One of the things that struck me last time around on a very human level

was to see very earnest public servants, volunteers, counting votes, but intimidated by the process. And the intimidation went all the way up to the President of the United States. Do you think this time around there's an element of greater intimidation or the opposite? Do you feel that people that are working these jobs feel protected overall by the legal system?

So I think it's a mixed bag. I mean, on the one hand, we should take solace in the fact that the system held in 2020. But by its chinny-chin-chin, I mean, it barely. Yes, barely. And there is more robustness preparing for 2024 than there was in 2020. So that's part of the good news. The other positive is that you do have more responsible election officials in more senior positions. You have a Democratic governor in

In Pennsylvania, in Michigan, in Wisconsin, in Arizona, you have Democratic secretaries of state in those places, as well as in Nevada. You know, and in Georgia, you have Republicans, but Republicans who have been battle-tested against Donald Trump. So that's the good news. The bad news is that there is more force being placed on the system by the other side. Well, tell me about that force. What do you mean by that in particular? Yeah.

So the last two years have been pretty extraordinary in the volume of anti-voting litigation that is being filed by Republicans. And I think that it falls into two buckets that are really relevant for today. The first is they are bringing litigation to upend the voting process. They are literally suing states to strike down laws that prohibit the harassment of election officials.

I'm not making this up. Literally, they are saying that they have free speech rights that are being infringed by laws that prevent you from harassing or intimidating election officials. So that's kind of one category.

The other is they are challenging laws that simply make voting more accessible to people. For example, in several states, they are challenging laws that say that ballots cast by Election Day can be counted. These are cast before Election Day, postmarked for Election Day, but come in the day after. They want all of those ballots thrown out.

And that's the kind of litigation, frankly, that just didn't exist, you know, before this election. So there's just a lot more stress being placed on the system. Let's get down to some brass tacks. Georgia's state election board recently voted to change the rules of certification to allow for local election officials to investigate ballot counts before certifying those results. This sounds like minutiae.

But in fact, if I have you right, it's an insidious change. Absolutely, it's insidious. I mean, it's someplace between insidious and insane. I mean, this is equivalent to saying at a football game that we're going to give the scoreboard operator the opportunity to investigate for themselves whether a touchdown was scored, right? I mean, the job of the certification boards in these states is

is normally described as mandatory or ministerial. Their job is to take the results that they have and put them on state-approved forms, to sign those forms, and then everyone takes a photo together and celebrates democracy.

I mean, the history of the certification process in the United States was part of the reinforcement mechanism of democracy. It is part of what I sometimes call the pageantry of democracy, where after an election is hard fought, the local election officials at the county levels on a bipartisan basis come together and congratulate themselves for

for a job well done, and then sending those forms on to the state, where then another group of bipartisan officials self-congratulate themselves for a job well done again. A bigger certificate is filled out with maybe now calligraphy, and then it goes to the governor, and then a bigger form yet still is filled out, signed by him, and that definitely has calligraphy, and it almost certainly has a ribbon on

And those forms get sent to the House of Representatives and the National Archivist. And then those are put in a wooden box and are opened to great fanfare by the vice president. And it is that pageantry of democracy that takes the unofficial results of

And through reinforcement mechanisms, has everyone feel like whether they are candidate one or lost, it was a job well done. So these rule changes have just been challenged by the Democratic Party. A lawsuit was filed before a state judge in Atlanta that claims that these rule changes actually violate state law, which requires the state election board to certify them.

Look, the fact is that the requirement in Georgia law is that the boards that do the certification do the ministerial mandatory act of certification. There is nothing in the law that gives them more than that, and that they do it by a date certain. And that date certain is in the law as well. And what you have seen is that this sleepy board—

got a shout-out at a Donald Trump rally. Exactly. Let's listen to that shout-out. Listeners might have actually heard Trump praising these Georgia State Election Board officials by name. So let's listen to that. At least one of them was actually there. I don't know if you've heard, but the Georgia State Election Board is in a very positive way. This is a very positive thing, Marjorie. They're on fire. They're doing a great job. Three members. Janice Johnson...

Rick Jeffries and Janelle King, three people, are all pit bulls fighting for honesty, transparency, and victory. They're fighting. Pit bulls fighting for honesty. What do you make of that? I think we sometimes become immune to the abnormality that is Donald Trump. I mean, this is a presidential candidate at a political rally calling out by name

three of five members of a state board whose job is to pass regulations for the conduct of voting and vote counting. I mean, this is not a prominent body of people. This is not a body that is normally viewed in political terms. And Donald Trump called them out by name. And note, and this is something that I think has not been focused on enough by the media, he only called out three of the five. In fact, he acted as if it was a three-member board.

There are five members of the board, but he only called out the three that are in the majority on these rules that he likes. Now, is the only possible response to this to just get out the vote and win by a lot? So here I am somewhat at odds with some of the messaging that other people have.

Yes, everyone should vote. Yes, it is critical that everyone make sure they are registered, double check their registration. They have a plan to vote and vote. So, yes, it will be good for democracy and good for the country if Kamala Harris wins in a landslide. That said, we cannot create a two-tier election system in which one candidate has to win by one vote.

And the other candidate has to win by a landslide. In fact, it's even worse than that because Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes than Donald Trump in the popular vote.

Joe Biden got 7 million more votes than Donald Trump in the popular vote. So we cannot set up a system where, in addition to the natural bias that the Electoral College has in favor of Republican candidates, which are the rules, those are the rules set out in the Constitution, that we then set an even higher bar, an artificially high bar, that somehow Democrats have to win in landslides. Otherwise, they are legitimately contested. Whereas when Hillary Clinton loses narrowly in three states, she's expected to concede.

When John Kerry loses narrowly in one state, he's expected to concede. Look, I think the reason why I am concerned about 2024 is let's talk about what's happened since then. Donald Trump, not that long ago, said that he believes he didn't just win Nevada, Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, right? Those are the five states he contested in 2020. Right.

He also said he believes he won Minnesota, right? He just said if Jesus were counting the votes, he also won California. Right. So he lost Minnesota by 7%. He also recently said that he believes he either won or will win or both New Jersey and New York.

And most recently, as you point out, he's added California to that list. I think we need to take him both literally and seriously. One of the worst pieces of advice we got was at one point to say to take him seriously but not literally.

I believe Donald Trump is going to say after Election Day in 2024 that he won all 50 states, that there's no state he didn't win. Possibly 51. 51 if you include the District of Columbia. Correct. And like that is just the pathology that is Donald Trump. And Trumpism ultimately can't yield to anything other than Donald Trump's pathology. I'm talking with election lawyer Mark Elias, and we'll continue in a moment.

We make USAA insurance to help you save. Take advantage of savings when you cover your home and your ride. Discover how we're helping members save at USAA.com slash bundle. Restrictions apply.

An exciting lineup of New York musicians will perform live at Central Park Summer Stage to help celebrate WNYC's 100th birthday. I'm John Schaefer. Join me and other WNYC hosts for a free evening of comedy, trivia, stories, and music featuring Laurie Anderson with Sex Mob, Freestyle Love Supreme, Notta Surf and MXM Tune, and a DJ set by Don Will. Monday, September 9th. Details at WNYC.org slash 100.

What are some of the other tactics, Mark, that are currently being used to sow doubt in our electoral process? And what have been the most effective among them? Yeah, so I think that one of the big tactics that I am worried about are mass voter challenges. So, you know, many states for decades have had laws that say, if you happen to know that your uncle died—

or has moved out of state, you can notify the county and say, you know what, my uncle died or moved out of state. And their name would then be removed from the list or put in a pile of people who probably shouldn't be able to vote. What we saw after 2020, and the timing of this is very important because it was right after 2020, it was in connection with the runoff Senate elections in 2021, which were in January of 2021. We saw the Republican Party react to Donald Trump's loss

in the days afterwards by filing 364,000 challenges in connection with those Senate elections. Think about that. 364,000 people had their right to vote challenged by Republicans and their allies leading up to those Senate elections. Now, my team and others, we litigated those, and there was a lot of organizing, and counties, frankly, didn't know what to do with them, so they disregarded them in many instances. What did Georgia do? Georgia came back and passed a new law

to make it harder to dismiss challenges and easier to challenge. In 2022, we saw another 100,000 challenges in Georgia.

When those didn't succeed, what did Georgia do this year? They came back with another law to make it easier to challenge voters and harder to defeat challenges. And it's not just Georgia. We have seen tens of thousands of voters challenged in Texas. We have seen tens of thousands of voters challenged already in Nevada. We have seen challenges launched in Pennsylvania, mass challenges launched in New York. And what percentage of these challenges would you consider

are even within the realm of reasonable? Close to zero. I mean, these are challenges that are created off of right-wing...

technology platforms using large data sets, AI, whatever it is, and they generate these mass spreadsheets of names. They are generated by voter suppression outfits or individuals who are misguided, who then submit them to the counties. And it is a real challenge. We face the possibility that in 2024, we will see more voters have their right to vote challenged than in any time since the passage of the Voting Rights Act.

and the Jim Crow South. Mark, it's been reported that Kamala Harris's legal team is 10 times larger, 10 times larger than Joe Biden's legal team was in 2020. Why is the scale so much larger? And what are they looking at this time around that they weren't looking at last time? Look, I think that the scale of the problem in 2024 is...

at least 10 times what we thought the problem was in 2020. I won't say it's 10 times larger than the problem was in 2020, but the anticipation, the anticipated problem. I mean, let's be clear in 2020, Donald Trump and his allies launched 65 separate lawsuits to try to overturn the election in five States. Now, maybe this is outside your immediate realm, but, but,

The outcome of all of this last time around was an insurrection on Capitol Hill on January 6th. And election denialism was at the heart of that. Does the potential for greater violence keep you up at night when it comes to the post-election period?

Everything keeps me up at night about the voting process and the post-election period. I think that the fact is that if you look at the median or average, either one, where Republicans were at this point in 2020, and you look at where they are today, they have shifted markedly against democracy. I mean, here's one way I measure this.

There is no Republican official, elected official, more responsible for the insurrection and the lead up to the insurrection on Capitol Hill than Mike Johnson. Mike Johnson at the time was a backbench Republican from Louisiana, and he organized the Republican members of the House,

to file a brief to throw out the election results in four entire states. This was an effort led by Texas to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. And Mike Johnson organized 126 Republican members of the House to sign onto that brief. And that was the organizing effort for then the night of January 6th when they voted against the insurrection. He's now the Speaker of the House. He's now the Speaker of the House. And if you had a similar brief today,

Do you think there'd only be 126 Republicans? No, there'd be 200 Republicans in the House signing on to that brief today. Mark, if you had to predict, what does the morning of November 6th look like in a very tight race?

So first of all, I think everyone needs to be prepared about two things. The first is that Donald Trump will declare victory at some point, either before the polls close or certainly before the ballots are counted, right? So we will wake up on the morning of November 6th, almost a certainty with Donald Trump having declared victory. The second thing is that I expect that you will have immediate claims on the Republican side.

to that the ballot counting needs to stop and that ballots still being counted are fraudulent.

And we saw that in 2020, but I think we're going to see it in much greater effect in 2024, which is why they are in state after state trying to do what they can to cast doubt on ballots that are not fully counted by Election Day. Well, it looks like a pretty grim picture no matter what. No matter what the vote counts, it looks like chaos is almost inevitable. Yeah.

I don't think chaos is inevitable. I think vote denial is inevitable. Is there a difference? Yeah, because I think that Donald Trump can lose and there not be chaos. I mean, I wouldn't describe the post-election litigation in 2020 as chaos. I mean, it became chaotic, obviously, around January 6th.

So it is possible that we see that in 2024, where Donald Trump is lost. Everybody knows Donald Trump is lost. And there is cleanup to be done around it, but it's not chaotic. I think what we won't have is what we had in 2016, which is a candidate, in that case, Hillary Clinton, who graciously conceded the election when she lost, or in 2012 when we had that, or in 2008, or in 2004, or in 2000. Are you telling me that

there's no way Trump graciously concedes or that neither candidate graciously concedes? I don't think there's any chance Donald Trump does. Look, I was the general counsel for John Kerry's campaign in 2004. And as contentious as this moment is, you remember 2004 was a contentious moment, particularly for Democrats. We had felt like the 2000 post-election had led to a stolen election or at least a disputed election. It was very, very hard.

to have a conversation with John Kerry, in which I said to him, you do not have a path to win a recount in the state of Ohio. Okay? And he conceded. And in 2016, I had to tell Hillary Clinton, as her general counsel, that there was no path to overturning very, very close results

in three states after she had won the popular vote against Donald Trump of all people. But that's where the votes were. And so, look, I'm not saying that I get to be the first say or I get to be the final say. I don't. Candidates make their own decisions about what to do. But Democrats have a history of accepting the reality of election results. And until Donald Trump, by the way, I could cite examples of Republicans who had a history of accepting reality on the election results.

Mark, thank you so much. It's good to talk with you. Good to talk to you. Mark Elias. He runs the Elias Law Group that's working for Vice President Kamala Harris's campaign. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. Thanks for joining us. See you next time.

The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Our theme music was composed and performed by Meryl Garbus of Tune Yards, with additional music by Louis Mitchell. This episode was produced by Max Balton, Adam Howard, David Krasnow, Jeffrey Masters, Louis Mitchell, Jared Paul, and Ursula Sommer. With guidance from Emily Botin and assistance from Michael May, David Gable, and Alejandra Deckett.

The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Cherena Endowment Fund. We make USAA insurance to help you save. Take advantage of savings when you cover your home and your ride. Discover how we're helping members save at USAA.com slash bundle. Restrictions apply. My name is Madeline Barron. I'm a journalist for The New Yorker. I...

focus on stories where powerful people or institutions are doing something that's harming people or harming someone or something in some way. And so my job is to report that so exhaustively that we can reveal what's actually going on and present it to the public.

You know, for us at In the Dark, we're paying equal attention to the reporting and the storytelling. And we felt a real kinship with The New Yorker, like the combination of the deeply reported stories that The New Yorker is known for, but also the quality of those stories, the attention to narrative. If I could give you only one reason to subscribe to The New Yorker, it would be... Maybe this is not the answer you're looking for, but...

I just don't think that there is any other magazine in America that combines so many different types of things into a single issue as a New Yorker. You know, like you have poetry, you have theater reviews, you have restaurant recommendations, which for some reason I read even though I don't live in New York City. And all of those things are great, but I haven't even mentioned like

the other half of the magazine, which is deeply reported stories that honestly are the first things that I read. You know, I'm a big fan of gymnastics and people will say, oh, we're so lucky to live in the era of Simone Biles, which I agree. We're also so lucky to live in the era of Lawrence Wright, Jane Mayer, Ronan Farrow, Patrick Radden Keefe. And so to me, it's like I can't imagine not reading these writers.

You can have all the journalism, the fiction, the film, book, and TV reviews, all the cartoons, just by going right now to newyorker.com slash dark. Plus, there's an incredible archive, a century's worth of award-winning work just waiting for you. That's newyorker.com slash dark. And thanks. My name is Madeline Barron. I'm a journalist for The New Yorker. I...

focus on stories where powerful people or institutions are doing something that's harming people or harming someone or something in some way. And so my job is to report that so exhaustively that we can reveal what's actually going on and present it to the public.

You know, for us at In the Dark, we're paying equal attention to the reporting and the storytelling. And we felt a real kinship with The New Yorker, like the combination of the deeply reported stories that The New Yorker is known for, but also the quality of those stories, the attention to narrative. If I could give you only one reason to subscribe to The New Yorker, it would be... Maybe this is not the answer you're looking for, but...

I just don't think that there is any other magazine in America that combines so many different types of things into a single issue as a New Yorker. You know, like you have poetry, you have theater reviews, you have restaurant recommendations, which for some reason I read even though I don't live in New York City. And all of those things are great, but I haven't even mentioned like

the other half of the magazine, which is deeply reported stories that honestly are the first things that I read. You know, I'm a big fan of gymnastics and people will say, oh, we're so lucky to live in the era of Simone Biles, which I agree. We're also so lucky to live in the era of Lawrence Wright, Jane Mayer, Ronan Farrow, Patrick Radden Keefe. And so to me, it's like, I can't imagine not reading these writers. ♪

You can have all the journalism, the fiction, the film, book, and TV reviews, all the cartoons, just by going right now to newyorker.com slash dark. Plus, there's an incredible archive, a century's worth of award-winning work just waiting for you. That's newyorker.com slash dark. And thanks. From PR.