How easy is it to vote in Kentucky?

Last Friday, I sat down with Professor Josh Douglas, a UK law professor and author of the book The Court Versus the Voters.

He argues the US Supreme Court decisions have undermined voting rights.

I talked to Professor Douglas about election integrity in Kentucky.

You were very instrumental in some of the election reforms that have happened a few years ago and even subsequent tweaks to our access.

And you said that Kentucky's done a fairly good job.

You would say God asked you to give a grade, professor?

Yeah.

Kentucky's voting rules.

And how accessible they are to all populations.

I think we do a pretty good job.

It's not perfect.

But I do think we found something special here in making sure that both sides can come together.

So in the conclusion of the book, I call for what I refer to as the Grand Election Compromise four principles that should be the starting place for all of our conversations about election rules.

And I point to Kentucky as an example where we've seem to achieve the grand election compromise on for example, the voter ID bill, early voting.

The four principles are eligible voters should have easy access to the ballot.

The system should be set up to deter fraud, not at the expense of voters, but set up to deter fraud.

Voters should be well-educated and losing candidates should graciously accept defeat.

If you don't agree on one of those principles, I start to question whether we're having a conversation about being in a democracy.

So those should be the starting place for our conversations.

Now, Kentucky could do a lot better.

We have three days of early voting.

I think something like seven might make more sense.

We have the ID law.

I don't think it's necessary, but I'm also don't think it's doing a ton of harm.

Where we don't do very well is on our voter registration deadline, you know, 29 days before the election when roughly two thirds of the states have same day voter registration with no integrity problems.

We also don't do great in terms of absentee balloting in that you have to provide an excuse to vote absentee or by mail in voting.

I think, again, looking at other states that do this well.

So I would give us kind of a, you know, an average grade, maybe a B in terms of the overall structure.

But I think in the way we're having the conversations, we're doing very well and trying to achieve that grand election compromise idea.

You kind of frame some of this around the premise or thesis that there is a crisis in our democracy.

How pivotal are these U.S. Supreme Court rulings to this so-called crisis in democracy?

I think they're extremely pivotal because, you know, for for a couple of reasons.

I guess one is that they undermine the value of the constitutional right to vote, which should be the most important principle.

And this is not a partizan statement, right?

We're talking about every voter.

I want everyone to vote and let the chips fall where they may.

And what this does is it gives incentives for states to pass stricter and stricter voting rules, knowing that they're not going to have meaningful judicial oversight.

And again, the so-called blue states are doing it where they draw maps favorable to the Democrats on partizan, gerrymandering, the red states are doing this.

Many of them are doing this as well.

You have laws that impact people of color in particular.

And with the court gutting the protections of the Federal Voting Rights Act, then it's harder for minority individuals to bring successful claims to challenge these laws.

So you have kind of a crisis in terms of the protection.

The second way is that we're undermining confidence in our elections, right?

We need to have people believe in the legitimacy of our processes.

And when you start elevating the concern of voter fraud without any evidence whatsoever that it exists, you know, it's one of those if you save enough times, people start to believe it.

And so the court's rulings that defer to states and say, well, you're concerned about election fraud.

And so we're going to trust you, even though you have no evidence, makes people think it exists When it doesn't actually it's not actually there.

Well, certainly, I think we will have you back as we come and approach the general election where a lot of discussions will be had about voters voting access to voting rules, just to remind people.

And so the book is the Court v the voters, and it is available where books are sold.

Dr. Joshua Douglas, good to see you and thanks for being here.

Thank you, Renee.

You can see part one of my interview with Professor Douglas by watching last night's Kentucky edition online On Demand at Katie Dawg.