>>> THIS IS "METROFOCUS" WITH RAFAEL PI ROMAN, JACK FORD AND JENNA FLANAGAN.

"METROFOCUS" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III SYLVIA A.

AND SIMON B. POYTA PROGRAMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTI-SEMITISM BERNARD AND DENISE SCHWARTZ BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG AND BY JANET PRINDLE SEIDLER JODY AND JOHN ARNHOLD CHERYL AND PHILIP MILSTEIN FAMILY JUDY AND JOSH WESTON DR. ROBERT C. AND TINA SOHN FOUNDATION >>> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THIS SPECIAL EDITION OF "METROFOCUS," I'M RAFAEL PI ROMAN.

WITH JOE BIDEN'S INAUGURATION THIS WEEK, WE THOUGHT WE WOULD LOOK BACK ON THE TRADITION.

IT WAS RIGHT HERE AT NEW YORK CITY'S FEDERAL HALL THAT PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON TOOK THE FIRST OATH OF OFFICE AND DELIVERED HIS FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS BACK IN 1789.

MANY NEW YORKERS HAVE FORGOTTEN OR NEVER KNOWN AS FEDERAL HALL'S ROLE IN THE BIRTH OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REP AL REPUBLIC.

BUT THERE IS A PUSH TO BRIDGE THAT GAP IN OUR KNOWLEDGE, AT THE SAME TIME PRESENTING THE STORY OF OUR NATION IN A MORE AUTHENTIC WAY.

THE PROJECT IS CALLED NEW DAY AT FEDERAL HALL, AND TO HELP RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT IT, THE NATIONAL PARKS OF NEW YORK HARBOR C CONSERVANCY IS HOSTING A PROGRAM CALLED DEBATE DEFENSE DEMOCRACY.

HERE'S A LOOK.

♪ >> THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION ESTABLISHED THE ROLE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUT THEY PROVIDED FEW GUIDELINES FOR THE INAUGURATION AND CONDUCT OF THE PRESIDENCY.

WASHINGTON HAD NO FOOTSTEPS TO FOLLOW, YET HE LEVEL SOME BIG SHOES TO FILL.

HE ESTABLISHED WHAT BECAME LONG-STANDING PRESIDENTIAL TRADITIONS, BEGINNING WITH OUR NATION'S FIRST INAUGURAL CEREMONY.

AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE NEW DEMOCRACY, WHEN KINGS AND EMPERORS RULED THE WORLD, HE SET THE TONE BY CHOOSING TO WEAR A SIMPLE BROWN AMERICAN-MADE SUIT.

AT THE LAST MINUTE, A BIBLE WAS BORROWED FROM ST. JOHN'S LODGE SO HE COULD PLACE HIS HAND ON IT AT THE SWEARING IN.

WASHINGTON TYPICALLY KEPT HIS OPINIONS TO HIMSELF, BUT HE HAD DRAFTED A 73-PAGE INAUGURAL ADDRESS THAT EXPLICITLY EXPLORED SOME STILL VOLATILE ISSUES.

WHEN JAMES MADISON CAUTIONED HIM THAT THE IDEAS IN THE SPEECH FOR CONTENTIOUS, WASHINGTON DELIVERED A SIMPLIFIED VERSION.

THE UNDELIVERED ADDRESS HAD BEEN LARGELY LOST TO HISTORY UNTIL RECENTLY.

THE FRAMERS ALSO DIDN'T ESTABLISH HOW LONG A PRESIDENT COULD SERVE, BUT WASHINGTON DID NOT WANT TO REPLICATE THE MONARCHY, SO HE RETIRED AFTER TWO TERMS.

THIS TRADITION WAS FOLLOWED UNTIL FDR'S PRESIDENCY DURING WORLD WAR II.

IT BECAME LAW WITH THE 22nd AMENDMENT IN 1951.

IN HIS FAREWELL ADDRESS, WASHINGTON WARNED THAT SECTIONAL DIVIDES, POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP AND INTERFERENCE BY FOREIGN POWERS IN THE NATION'S DOMESTIC AFFAIRS COULD THREATEN THE STABILITY OF THE REPUBLIC.

HE URGED AMERICANS TO PLACE THE NATIONAL INTEREST AHEAD OF PARTY LOYALTY.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION, THE FIRST PRES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS CAST THEIR VOTES AND WASHINGTON WON UNANIMOUSLY.

NOT ALL ELECTIONS HAVE RUN AS SMOOTHLY.

THE ELECTION OF THOMAS JEFFERSON AS AMERICA'S THIRD PRESIDENT WAS THROWN INTO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BECAUSE HE DIDN'T SECURE A MAJORITY OF ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES.

IT TOOK 36 BALLOTS FOR JEFFERSON TO WIN.

ALMOST A CENTURY LATER, THE HAYES ELECTION WAS MARKED BY WIDESPREAD VOTER FRAUD AND SUPPRESSION OF THE BLACK VOTE.

A CONTROVERSIAL CONGRESSIONAL RULING GAVE HAYES THE WIN.

HOW COULD SUCH TURMOIL BE POSSIBLE?

WELL, THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE STATES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ELECTIONS, BUT IT PROVIDES SCANT DIRECTION.

THE RESULT?

A PATCHWORK OF 50 DIFFERENT SYSTEMS AND ROOM FOR ARGUMENT ABOUT WHAT'S FAIR.

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SOMETIMES AT ODDS WITH THE POPULAR VOTE HAS ALSO CREATED THIS.

THE LOSER ISN'T REQUIRED TO CONCEDE, BUT SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE CAN BE DONE WHEN THEY DON'T.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN WON A FOUR-WAY CONTEST, BUT SOME OF HIS RIVALS NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED DEFEAT, DELEGITIMIZING HIS WIN.

AS A RESULT, SEVEN STATES SECEDED FROM THE UNION AND TRIGGERED THE CIVIL WAR.

MODERN COMMUNICATIONS AND TRAVEL MADE A LONG TRANSITION BETWEEN THE NOVEMBER ELECTION AND MARCH INAUGURATION LESS NECESSARY.

HERBERT HOOVER AND PRESIDENT-ELECT FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT HAD VASTLY DIFFERENT POLICIES FOR ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND PROVED UNABLE TO WORK TOGETHER.

MEANWHILE, THE NATION'S ECONOMY TEATERED.

SOON AFTER FDR'S INAUGURATION, THE 20th AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED, MOVING INAUGURATION DATE UP TO JANUARY 20th.

CONGRESS IN 1963 LEGISLATED A FRAMEWORK FOR MORE ORDERLY TRANSFER OF POWER.

>>> AND JOINING ME NOW TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION AND PUT THE INAUGURATION IN PERSPECTIVE ARE SAM ROBERTS, VETERAN "NEW YORK TIMES" REPORTER, AUTHOR AND HISTORY ADVISER FOR FEDERAL HALL.

JOHN AVLON, COLUMNIST AND SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST AT CNN AND THE AUTHOR OF SEVERAL BOOKS INCLUDING "WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL."

AND FRANITA TOLSON, VICE DEAN FOR FACULTY AND ACADEMIC AFFAIRS AND PROFESSOR OF LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF LAW, WHO FOCUSES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

WELCOME, ALL OF YOU.

PLEASURE TO HAVE YOU GUYS HERE.

>> GOOD TO BE WITH YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SAM, LET ME START WITH YOU, AS I OFTEN TDO, AND COULD YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT FEDERAL HALL?

CAN YOU ELABORATE ON WHAT I SAID IN THE INTRODUCTION ABOUT ITS HISTORY?

>> IT'S CALLED A NATIONAL MEMORIAL, RAF, BUT IN FACT, AS FAULKNER SAID, THE PAST ISN'T DEAD, IT'S NOT EVEN PAST.

THIS IS ABOUT CIVIC AND CIVIL ENGA ENGAGEMENT.

IT CONTEXTUALIZES EVENTS TO SHOW WHAT HAPPENED, DURING, AS YOU SAID, THOSE 531 DAYS WHEN NEW YORK WAS THE NATION'S CAPITAL.

AND 230 YEARS LATER, WE'RE STILL STRUGGLING TO FULFILL THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES OF CIVIL LIBERTIES, EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, STATE'S RIGHTS, SEPARATION OF POWERS, ALL OF WHICH WERE FIRST DEFINED, DEBATED, DENIED, DEFERRED BY THE FOUNDERS AT FEDERAL HALL.

THEY STARTED WITH A BLANK SLATE, THEY MOVED INTO IS WHAT USED TO BE THE CITY HALL.

IT WAS CONVERTED TO FEDERAL HALL ON WALL STREET AND THEY HAD TO WORK WITH 4,500 WORLDS OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT NEVER MENTIONED THE WORD DEMOCRACY.

THEY HAD TO CREATE THE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT FROM THIS BLUEPRINT.

THE FIRST INAUGURATION WAS SCHEDULED FOR EARLY MARCH, BUT IT RAINED A LOT AND THEY HAD TROUBLE GETTING TO NEW YORK, THEY HAD TROUBLE GETTING DECORUM.

AND FINALLY, WASHINGTON WAS INAUGURATED ON APRIL 30th.

HE CAME TO NEW YORK, OF COURSE, ON HORSEBACK.

THE CITY WAS STILL RECOVERS FROM SEVEN YEARS OF BRUTAL BRITISH OCCUPATION.

AND WASHINGTON CAME TO NEW YORK, WE FORGET THIS, COMING TO NEW YORK WITH MORE SLAVES THAT HE HAD AT MT.

VERNON THAN HE HAD FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN NEW YORK.

HE HAD NO FOOTSTEPS TO FOLLOW AND ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THEY HAD TO DEAL WITH WAS WHAT TO CALL THE PRESIDENT.

HIS EXCELLENCY, HIS MAJESTY.

WELL, WASHINGTON IN PART SOLVED THAT FOR STHEM, BY WEARING A PLAIN BROWN SUIT, SO, THEY CALLED HIM MR. PRESIDENT.

SOMEBODY FORGOT THE BIBLE, SO, THEY HAD TO RUN DOWN TO A MASONIC LODGE TO GET A BIBLE.

AND WHAT'S FASCINATING, TOO, QUICKLY, ABOUT THAT SWEARING IN IS WHAT WASHINGTON DIDN'T SAY.

THE UNDELIVERED INAUGURAL ADDRESS.

73 PAGES LONG.

JAMES MADISON SORT OF FORBAD HIM FROM DELIVERING IT, SAYING NOT ONLY WAS IT TOO LONG, BUT IT WAS TOO SPECIFIC.

AND WASHINGTON, WHO ALWAYS PLAYED THINGS TOO CLOSE TO THE VEST, IN THIS SPEECH, SAID A LOT OF THINGS THAT MADISON SAID, DON'T SAY, YOU'RE COMMITTING YOURSELF TO TOO MANY THINGS, IT'S TOO EARLY IN YOUR ADMINISTRATION TO DO THAT AND WE ARE STILL TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER REMNANTS OF THAT SPEECH AND FIND OUT WHAT WASHINGTON REALLY MEANT.

>> YOU KNOW, JOHN, AS I MENTIONED IN THE INTRODUCTION, THE SERIES OF CONVERSATIONS CALLED DEBATE DEFENSE DEMOCRACY IS ONE OF THE FEATURES OF THE RENOVATION OF FEDERAL HALL.

YOU MODERATED THE LAST CONVERSATION AS YOU HAVE BEFORE.

TALK ABOUT THE THEMES OF THIS LAST CONVERSATION AND WHAT YOU HOPE YOUR VIEWERS WOULD TAKE OUT OF IT.

>> SURE.

WELL, I THINK WHAT DEFEND DEFEND DEMOCRACY HAS DONE, IT HIGHLIGHTS WHAT A ROLE IN COME PEOPLE PRAYER PLACE HAS IN CURRENT EVENTS.

IT IS AVAILABLE TO MANY MORE PEOPLE THAN WOULD FIT IN THE PHYSICAL SPACE DOING IT ON ZOOM, WHICH WAS THE CASE IN OUR LAST DEBATE, OVER 1,000 PEOPLE SIGNED UP AND IT WAS AIRED ALSO ON C-SPAN.

BUT THAT IDEA ABOUT DEBATE DEFENDING DEMOCRACY IS SO KEY, BECAUSE DEMOCRACY IS ABOUT REASONING TOGETHER.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE DON'T DISAGREE.

WE SHOULD DISAGREE, BUT WE SHOULD HAVE PRINCIPLES DISAGREEMENTS AND FACT-BASED DEBATES.

AND I THINK -- AND UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH OF OUR CURRENT DEBATES ARE NECESSARILY ROOTED IN HISTORY.

AND INSTEAD, I THINK, YOU KNOW, POLITICS TODAY, PERSPECTIVE IS THE THING WE HAVE LEAST OF.

AND THAT'S A REAL PROBLEM.

WE HAVE FALLEN DEEPLY BEHIND IN CIVIC HISTORY, IN CIVIC EDUCATION.

AND SO, SOME OF OUR MUSCLE MEMORY AS CITIZENS ATROPHIES AND PEOPLE ARE EASILY ENFLAMED TO THESE EXTREME OPINIONS AND PROJECT ALL SORTS OF THEIR OWN BAGGAGE ON OUR HISTORY AND RUSH TO THE RAMPARTS VERY QUICKLY AND DEMONIZE PEOPLE THEY DISAGREE WITH.

THAT'S NOT WHAT IT IS ABOUT.

WE NEED TO HAVE THE CIVIC DEBATES ROOTED IN HISTORY, UNDERSTANDING OUR INHERENT HISTORIC IMPERFECTIONS THAT WE'RE ALWAYS FIGHTING TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION.

THERE'S NO MYTHIC IDEAL PATH IN THE COUNTRY, FAR FROM IT, THAT WE'RE ALL, IN OUR OWN WAY, IMPERFECT PEOPLE STRUGGLING TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION, BUT WE WERE ABLE TO TRACK SMART PEOPLE, REPRESENTING DIFFERENT AREAS OF EXPERTISE, TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, TO RIFF OFF WHAT'S GOING IN CURRENT EVENTS BUT TO BE ABLE TO TAKE IT DEEPER AND THAT'S ONE OF THE KEY OPPORTUNITIES.

IT'S NOT A FIVE-MINUTE SEGMENT.

IT'S AN HOUR-LONG THOUGHTFUL CONVERSATION, AND SO YOU GET PEOPLE LIKE FRANITA COME IN AND OFFER THEIR EXPERTISE ON SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WE'RE DEBATING IN REAL-TIME RIGHT NOW.

THAT ADDS A LOT OF LIGHT WHERE TOO OFTEN THERE'S JUST A LOT OF HEAT.

>> YEAH.

REAL QUICKLY, JOHN, BEFORE WE GO TO THE PROFESSOR, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE HISTORY OF -- HISTORICAL MEMORY THAT INFORMS THE CHAOS AND THE CRISIS THAT WE'VE ENCOUNTERED IN THIS PARTICULAR PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION.

YOU KNOW, ASIDE FROM THE CIVIL WAR, LINCOLN'S FIRST INAUGURATION WHERE SEVEN STATES HAD ALREADY LEFT THE UNION BY THE TIME HE SPOKE, ARE THERE PRESIDENTS FOR THE KIND OF CRISIS THAT WE SAW, THAT WE'RE SEEING?

>> WELL, PRECEDENCE.

WELL LOOK, CERTAINLY, WE IN OUR COUNTRY HAVE BEEN THROUGH A NUMBER OF TIMES WHERE WE HAVE BEEN DEEPLY DIVIDED.

THE CIVIL WAR MOST STARKLY, WHERE THE PRESIDENT HAS TO COME IN AND TRY TO FORGE COMMON GROUND.

BUT OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, FIRST OF ALL, WE ARE NOT IN A CIVIL WAR, BUT CRUCIALLY MANY OF THE LEGACIES OF THE CIVIL WAR PLAY OUT IN POLITICS TO THIS DAY.

AND THAT'S WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND HISTORY, NOT JUST THE CIVIL WAR, BUT THE FAILURES OF RECONSTRUCTION AND THE WAY THAT THAT ALL CARRIES FORWARD INTO OUR POLITICAL FAULT LINES TODAY.

SOMETIMES EVEN UNCONSCIOUSLY, BUT AS PRESIDENT BIDEN BEGINS HIS ADMINISTRATION, HE HAS HISTORY TO DRAW ON.

AND INDEED HE DID SO IN THE CAMPAIGN, YOU KNOW, HIS TWO GREATEST SPEECHES OF HIS CAMPAIGN, TO MY MIND, ONE WAS GIVEN AT GETTYSBURG WITH VERY OVERT ECHOES OF LINCOLN AND THE CHALLENGE OF COMING, OF REUNITING A COUNTRY DIVIDED AND THE OTHER AT WARM SPRINGS, GEORGIA, FDR'S RETREAT, AS HE RECOVERED FROM POLIO.

SO, HE'S CON VERVE SANT IN THAT KIND OF HISTORY AND BRINGING IT TO BEAR.

AND I THINK THAT CAN BE A GREAT SENSE OF COMFORT TO HIM AND A STEADYING FORCE FOR THE NATION AS WE CONFRONT THESE VERY CONTEMPORARY, SOMETIMES PERPLEXING AND SOMETIMES UNPRECEDENTED CHALLENGES RIGHT NOW.

>> PROFESSOR, ARE THERE LEGAL AND MAYBE CONSTITUTIONAL MEASURES THAT WE CAN TAKE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CHAOS AND THE CRISIS THAT WE'RE EXPERIENCING DURING THIS ELECTION AND THIS TRANSITION, WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN?

>> TO SOME EXTENT, I THINK SOME OF THE EVENTS THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST FEW WEEKS HAVE TAKEN US BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF LAW.

I KNOW WE LIKE TO THINK ABOUT HOW LAW CAN FIX THIS, BUT A LOT OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE FAILURE OF CIVIC EDUCATION IN THIS COUNTRY.

PEOPLE JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.

SO, WHEN POLITICAL ELITES MISRESPECT WHAT IT TAKES TO BE PRESIDENT AND HOW OUR ELECTIONS WORK, THEY ARE RECEPTIVE TO THE MESSAGE BECAUSE THEY DON'T SIMPLY KNOW ANY BETTER.

BUT THERE ARE A FEW THINGS AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS ANOTHER PLACE WHERE THERE WILL BE A LOT OF DISAGREEMENT.

FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WE SHORTEN THE LAME DUCK PERIOD.

I KNOW THAT'S CONTROVERSIAL, BECAUSE THAT'S THE PERIOD WHERE THE NEW GOVERNMENT CAN GET UP AND RUNNING AND IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THAT REASON, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF WE ELECT THE WRONG PEOPLE TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT APPOINTS PEOPLE WHO, IN THE CABINET POSITIONS, WHO WILL NOT HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE AND WE HAVE A CONGRESS WHO DOESN'T HOLD THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE, THEN I THINK THE LAME DUCK PERIOD CAN ALSO BE A TIME IN WHICH THERE IS A LOT OF CHAOS AND UPHEAVAL.

AND SO I THINK THERE HAS TO BE SOME WAY TO BALANCE THE EQUITIES THERE, BECAUSE ONE OF THE LESSONS OF THE LAST FEW WEEKS IS THAT WE HAD A MASSIVE HUMAN RESOURCES PROBLEM, RIGHT?

WE HAD A PRESIDENT WHO WAS CHALLENGING ELECTION RESULTS, AN ELECTION THAT HE CLEARLY LOST, ENGAGING IN RHETORIC THAT ULTIMATELY HAS THE EFFECT OF ENFLAMING HIS FOLLOWERS TO CHARGE THE CAPITOL.

AND SO, I THINK THAT THERE ARE STEPS THAT WE CAN TAKE FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, BUT I THINK IN TERMS OF, LIKE, GETTING AT THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM, THE PATHOLOGY IS GOING TO RUN MUCH DEEPER THAN LAW, BECAUSE A LOT OF THE EVENTS OF THE LAST FEW WEEKS ARE NOT REALLY LEGAL PROBLEMS, THESE ARE CULTURAL AND POLITICAL PROBLEMS.

>> WE'LL GET TO THAT IN A SECOND, LET'S STAY WITH THE LAW.

A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, LESS THAN A WEEK, SEEMS LIKE YEARS AGO, I DID A SEGMENT WITH MY COHOST JACK FORD ABOUT THE OBJECTIONS THAT REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS HAD TO THE CERTIFICATION OF THE ELECTORAL VOTE COUNT.

I HAVE TO CONFESS, THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT I EVER KNEW THAT THERE WERE OBJECTIONS BEFORE.

MUCH LESS THAN EVER SINCE 2000, THE DEMOCRATS HAD OBJECTED TO EVERY PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WON BY REPUBLICANS AND IN 2005, BECAUSE THEY HAD THE SUPPORT OF DEMOCRATIC SENATOR BARBARA BOXER, THEY WERE ABLE TO STOP THE COUNT AND HAVE DEBATES JUST LIKE THEY DID THIS TIME.

STLP A PLACE WHERE LEGALLY WE CAN GO AND REVISIT?

BECAUSE IT CLEARLY SEEMS TO BE, TO OPEN ITSELF UP FOR POLITICAL MIS MISCHIEF.

IS THERE SOMETHING WE CAN CHANGE ABOUT THAT, THAT WE SHOULD CHANGE ABOUT THAT?

>> THE ELECTORAL COUNT ACT IS THE PROVISION THAT ALLOWS FOR OBJECTIONS, IT SORT OF GOVERNS THIS PROCESS.

IF YOU HAVE A SENATOR AND A REPRESENTATIVE LAUNCH AN OBJECTION, EACH CHAMBER GOES FOR TWO HOURS OF DEBATE AND THEN THEY COME BACK AND VOTE ON THE OBJECTION.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT PROCESS.

THERE'S A LOT WRONG WITH THE ECK LEG TOMORROW COUNT ACT, IT'S WRITTEN VERY POORLY, THERE'S A LOT OF AM BIGUITY WITH THE STATUTE.

IS THE PROBLEM THAT PEOPLE OBJECTED?

EVEN IN THIS CONTEXT, YOU HAVE IMAGINE HAVING OBJECTIONS TO THE WAY STATES HAVE PRESENTED THEIR ELECTORS.

AND IN FACT ELECTORAL COUNT ACT HAS A PROCESS IN PLACE TO FACILITATE THOSE OBJECTIONS.

BUT I THINK THE PROBLEM WITH THOSE OBJECTIONS WAS THE CONTEXT WHERE THE OBJECTIONS WERE HAPPENING.

YOU HAD MONTHS OF RHETORIC CALLING INTO QUESTION THE ELECTION OUTCOME AND THEN YOU HAD PEOPLE IN CONGRESS USING OFFICIAL CHANNELS IN ORDER TO FURTHER SHED DOUBT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION, RIGHT?

SO, I THINK IN TIMES OF POLARIZATION THAT THAT PARTICULAR FRAMEWORK CAN BE PROBLEMATIC IN A WAY THAT MAY NOT BE TRUE IN OTHER TIMES.

SO, I'M NOT SURE IF THE FIX IS, OKAY, LET'S MAKE IT SO THAT NO ONE CAN OBJECT.

TO SOME EXTENT, ALSO KEEP IN MIND, THE ELECTORAL COUNT ACT SAYS IF A STATE CERTIFIES THEIR SLATE OF ELECTORS BY A CERTAIN DATE, WHICH WAS DECEMBER th THIS YEAR, CONGRESS IS SUPPOSED TO TREAT THAT AS PRESUMPTIVELY CONCLUSIONIVE.

THEY'RE JUST SUPPOSED TO COUNT THAT.

THE PROBLEM IS NOT WON AND LOSS, BECAUSE IT SAYS THOSE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE TREATED AS VALID.

>> ONE MORE LAW QUESTION.

>> SURE.

>> THE CATALYST FOR THE STORMING OF THE CAPITOL AND OF THE CHAOS THAT HAS -- THAT WE'VE BEEN EXPERIENCING FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS HAS BEEN THE CLAIMS BY THE PRESIDENT AND MANY OF HIS SUPPORTERS THAT -- THAT THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN AND THAT WAS MADE POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE COMPLICATIONS OF OUR COVID ELECTION AND ALL THE NOVELTIES INVOLVED AND THAT, IN TURN, WAS MADE POSSIBLE BECAUSE EACH OF THE STATES HAS ITS OWN RULES, WHICH I ALSO DIDN'T KNOW, HAS ITS OWN RULES AS A RESULT OF -- OF THE -- TO DETERMINE THE ELECTIONS.

IS THAT SOMETHING WE NEED TO REVISIT?

MAYBE FEDERALIZE THE ELECTION, THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RULES ACROSS THE COUNTRY?

IS IT POSSIBLE TO DO THAT?

>> SO -- NOT REALLY, BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES FOR VERY DECENTRALIZED STRUCTURE.

NOW, SOME THINGS HAVE BEEN NATIONALIZED.

SO, THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 IS A STATUTE THAT, SOME OF ITS PROVISIONS APPLY NATIONWIDE.

THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION IN VOTING, BUT THERE WERE OTHER PROVISIONS THAT SINGLED OUT CERTAIN JURISDICTIONS.

SO, THERE ARE ASPECTS OF FEDERAL LAW THAT -- THERE ARE ASPECTS OF ELECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN FEDERALIZED.

NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT, WHICH MOST PEOPLE KNOW AS THE MOTOR VOTER LAW.

SO, THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE.

A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THIS IS HR-1.

AND KEEP IN MIND -- >> WHAT IS THAT?

>> SO, HR-1 IS IMPORTANT, BECAUSE IT IS A BILL THAT WOULD NATIONALIZE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF ELECTION ADMINISTRATION.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE BILL ALLOWS THOSE WITH FELONY CONVICTIONS TO REGISTER TO VOTE IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

IT WOULD REQUIRE INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONS FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.

IT MANDATES MANDATORY VOTER REGISTRATION FOR FEDERAL ELECTIONS AND SAME-DAY VOTER REGISTRATION FOR FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

SO, IT REALLY IS THE MOST EXPANSIVE INTERVENTION IN OUR SYSTEM OF ELECTIONS IN A GENERATION.

REALLY SINCE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

IT GOES WAY FURTHER THAN THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OR THE HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT, OTHER FEDERAL STATUTES THAT, YOU KNOW, MAY, YOU KNOW, IMPORTANT CHANGES, BUT ON A MUCH SMALLER SCALE.

AND SO IF THIS PASSES, IT WILL REPRESENT A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN HOW OUR ELECTIONS ARE CONDUCTED.

AND THE SYMBOLIZE OF IT BEING HR-1 SHOULD NOT BE OVERLOOKED, RIGHT?

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING DEMOCRACY IS ON THE AGENDA.

IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, WHICH IS WHY IT'S THE FIRST BILL WE'RE REINTRODUCING.

IT WAS INTRODUCED IN THE LAST CONGRESS AS HR-1 AND IT IS INTRODUCED AS HR-1 AGAIN.

>> SO, THAT'S COMING SOON.

>> YEAH.

>> JOHN, YOU WERE SHAKING YOUR HEAD WHEN I BEGAN TO ASK THE QUESTION.

QUICKLY?

>> YEAH, ON A COUPLE FRONTS.

FIRST OF ALL, THE PARALLELISM OF WHAT DEMOCRATS HAVE DONE IN PAST ELECTIONS DOES NOT ACTUALLY WORK REMOTELY WITH WHAT REPUBLICANS DID IN THIS ONE.

LET ME EXPLAIN WHY AS THOUGH THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT MADE.

WE HAVE HAD A HANDFUL -- HANDFUL OF DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE RAISED OBJECTIONS IN THE 2000 ELECTION, WHICH DEMOCRATS WON THE POPULAR VOTE AND WAS DECIDED BY FLORIDA BY A VERY NARROW MARGIN.

IN 2004, REPUBLICANS WON THE POPULAR VOTE, THE ONLY TIME IN THE LAST 25 YEARS, BUT OHIO WAS INCREDIBLY CLOSE AND THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ELECTION THERE, WHICH IS WHEN BARBER BOXER CAME ON.

AND IN THE WAKE OF THE 2016 ELECTION, WHERE, OF COURSE, DONALD TRUMP LOST THE POPULAR VOTE BY NEARLY 3 MILLION AND THERE WERE ACCURATE ALLEGATIONS OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE ON HIS BEHALF.

OUT OF THOSE THREE CHALLENGES BY A HAND.

OF DEMOCRATS, ONLY ONE CASE, 2005, DID ONE DEMOCRATIC SENATOR, BARBARA BOXER, SAY, YES, I WILL SIGN ONTO THIS AND THERE WAS A TWO-HOUR DEBATE.

THAT IS A FAR CRY FROM 139 REPUBLICAN -- 66% OF THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE -- SIGNING ONTO THIS, TOTALLY WITHOUT ANY -- >> AND FOUR SENATORS.

>> AND THEN SEVEN SENATORS SIGNING ON.

>> OH.

>> I JUST THINK CREATING THAT CONTEXT REAL WLI IMPORTANT, BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF THESE THINGS THAT TECHNICALLY TRUE, BUT CONTEXT CHULLY A LIE.

>> ALL RIGHT, GOOD.

SAM, IN THE LEADUP TO THE PRESIDENTIAL -- PRESIDENT-ELECT BIDEN'S INAUGURATION, WE HEARD THE THEME OF HIS SPEECH AND THE THEME OF THE WHOLE INAUGURATION PROCESS WILL BE UNITY, AS IS EXPECTED.

WHAT, FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE STEPS THAT HE COULD TAKE IN THE FIRST 100 DAYS, SAY, TO BEGIN THAT PROCESS OF UNITY?

>> WELL, WHEN YOU GO BACK AND JOHN PROBABLY KNOWS THIS BETTER THAN I DO, WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT WASHINGTON SAID, HE WAS TALKING ABOUT UNITING THE COUNTRY, TOO, BECAUSE PEOPLE FORGET THAT OUT OF THAT FIRST CONGRESS, THERE WAS THE FIRST TALK OF SECESSION.

THAT TALK WAS COMING FROM THE NORTH, WHICH SAID THAT IT WAS GOING TO SECEDE UNLESS THE UNITED STATES PICKED UP THE FEDERAL WAR DEBT, NOT THE SOUTH.

SO, THIS IS A VERY, VERY FRAGILE UNION AT THE TIME, WHEN CONGRESS WAS MEETING AT FEDERAL HALL DOWNTOWN.

AND I THINK JOE BIDEN IS GOING TO LOOK FOR THE SAME THING.

I THINK HE'S GOING TO LOOK FOR THE SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE, WHICH IS WHAT WE SAW AT FEDERAL HALL.

SOME OF THOSE COMPROMISING ARE THINGS THAT WE'RE SORT OF STUCK WITH TODAY THAT WENT TOO FAR, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE COMPROMISE OVER SLAVERY, FOR INSTANCE, WE'RE CERTAINLY IN A POSITION TO SECOND-GUESS THAT.

AND THAT'S WHY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO AT FEDERAL HALL IS SAY, YOU KNOW, WHAT IF THE FOUNDERS CAME BACK TODAY, WOULD THEY THINK THEY HAD GOTTEN IT RIGHT, WOULD THEY THINK WE HAD GOTTEN IT RIGHT?

AND HWHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU WERE THE FOUNDERS TODAY?

A LOT OF SECOND-GUESSING THERE.

WELL, I THINK JOE BIDEN IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT COMPROMISE, HE'S GOING TO TALK ABOUT BIPA BIPARTISANSHIP BUT HE'S ALSO GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW, HIS STRATEGY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING THINGS DONE, GETTING THIS COUNTRY ON THE RIGHT TRACK.

I'M NOT SURE HE'S GOING TO TALK ABNORMAL SI -- ABOUT SAN ANTONIO NORMALCY, THE LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT THAT, WE ENDED UP WITH WARREN HARDING.

SO, THAT MIGHT NOT BE A GOAL IN AND OF ITSELF, BUT I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A POSITIVE, CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH.

>> AND WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FROM THE NEW CONGRESS?

THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN CONTROL OF THE HOUSE AND VERY SMALL MARGIN IN CONTROL OF THE SENATE.

WHAT CAN DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS DO TO TRY TO ACHIEVE BRINGING US TOGETHER RATHER THAN CONTINUING TO SPLIT US APART?

>> IF THEY DON'T WORK TOGETHER, THEY'RE GOING TO ACCOMPLISH VERY, VERY LITTLE.

THE QUESTION IS GOING TO BE WHETHER THE REPUBLICANS WANT SOMETHING TO RUN ON TWO YEARS FROM NOW, RATHER THAN JUST BEING OBSTRUCTIONISTS.

IF THEY WANT TO GO HOME AND THEY SAY THEY ACCOMPLISHED X, Y AND Z, RATHER THAN JUST STANDING UP TO THE DEMOCRATS, I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO AGREE ON CERTAIN PIECES OF LEGISLATION, WHETHER IMMIGRATION OR OTHER THINGS THAT THEY CAN TAKE BACK HOME.

>> PROFESSOR, WHAT -- WE HAVE LESS THAN A MINUTE LEFT.

WHAT ARE THE SIGNS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR TO SEE WHICH ONE OF THOSE DIRECTIONS WE'RE HEADING, COMING TOGETHER OR COMING FURTHER APART?

>> WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME BIPARTISAN MOVEMENT ON SOME OF THE ELECTION-RELATED LEGISLATION, LIKE, YOU KNOW, REPUBLICANS CARE ABOUT ELECTION SECURITY, I'M SURE THERE'S SOME POLITICAL COMPROMISES THAT CAN BE MADE.

HR-4, WHICH WOULD RESTORE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

IT'S MUCH MORE NARROW AND I'M HOPING -- THE VOTES RIGHTS ACT USED TO BE BIPARTISAN.

WHEN IT PASSED THE CONGRESS IN 2006, IT WAS 98-0 IN THE SENATE, RIGHT?

SO, I -- I JUST HOPE WE CAN GET BACK THERE, ESPECIALLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE RECENT EVENTS AND WE REALIZE HOW FRAGILE DEMOCRACY IS AND HOW IMPORTANT THE RIGHT TO VOTE IS, RIGHT?

AND HOW SO MANY AMERICANS ARE WILLING TO COOPT THAT LANGUAGE OF REVOLUTION, BECAUSE IT'S SO MUCH PART OF THE AMERICAN ETHOS, FORGETTING WE HAVE PIVOTED TOWARDS DEMOCRATIC NORMS.

THAT'S ONE OF THE LESSONS OUT OF THE CIVIL WAR.

>> I HATE TO CUT YOU OFF, SORRY, GUYS, WE'RE OUT OF TIME, BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US TODAY, IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE.

>> THANK YOU.

"METROFOCUS" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III SYLVIA A.

AND SIMON B. POYTA PROGRAMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTI-SEMITISM BERNARD AND DENISE SCHWARTZ BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG AND BY JANET PRINDLE SEIDLER JODY AND JOHN ARNHOLD CHERYL AND PHILIP MILSTEIN FAMILY JUDY AND JOSH WESTON DR. ROBERT C. AND TINA SOHN FOUNDATION