(bright music) - The countdown is on for midterm elections.

The stakes are high, since Democrats could block part of President Trump's agenda if they retake the US House of Representatives.

A host of factors could influence elections.

Republicans and Democrats have skirmished on redistricting.

A major voting rights case looms before the Supreme Court, and it's unclear how clashes between ICE agents and demonstrators will influence elections in other states.

One person on the front lines is Rhode Island's Secretary of State, Gregg Amore.

How does Amore see the outlook for free and fair elections?

And what is at stake as President Trump's term approaches its midpoint?

I'm Ian Donnis, and that's just some of what we talked about in this in-depth conversation.

Secretary of State Gregg Amore, welcome to "One on One."

- Thanks for having me, Ian.

- Your office helps to oversee elections in Rhode Island with the State Board of Elections and city and town officials.

So I'm going to start with some election-related questions.

Obviously, this is a big year for America in terms of midterm elections in November.

Are you confident in the integrity of the vote as we approach that?

- I am, I am.

Rhode Island is a leader around voterless maintenance.

Rhode Island's a leader in regard to getting information out to voters to make sure they have all the information they need to cast- - What about in other states?

- I mean, I can speak to Rhode Island, but I know for a fact, because I'm a part of the National Association of Secretaries of State, that it looks similarly in all states.

And all states attempt to do the same voterless maintenance, attempt to make sure they have outreach, make sure that their elections are secure and safe.

- We see a lot of polarization in Minnesota right now with ICE and demonstrators against that agency.

Do you think there will be violence in connection with elections?

- Yeah, I hope not, obviously.

The thing that makes us a great democracy is the ability for our citizens to go out and cast a vote, and that should determine the future of our politics.

It should not be violence.

And I think it's important to understand that, you know, there are federal laws in place that make sure that there are not military forces or federal agents in or around polling locations.

That is something that is foundational to this American experiment.

And I hope and I think that will continue.

- Is your office doing any planning for possible scenarios of unexpected things in terms of the election later this year?

- We have already conducted a cybersecurity summit, as well as a physical security summit for all of the folks who administer elections locally.

We did that at the Newport Naval Base.

We had national folks come in, including from the Department of Homeland Security, experts in elections administration, folks from the MIT Election Lab.

And it helps us prepare for what may occur.

And so we do tabletop exercises.

I'll be in Washington, DC in a few weeks.

I'll be involved in two tabletop exercises around potential interference in our elections or issues that may occur, let's say a bomb threat or something like that.

And we can be as prepared as we can be in case those things do occur.

- Do you see any linkage between the midterm elections and the way in which President Trump has sent the National Guard to various states?

- Yeah, as I said, I don't think there should be a military presence around elections.

And federal law is very specific around that.

But I'm not willing to say that there's a connection between the two.

States run elections.

States administer elections.

And they have the responsibility to do so.

The federal government has a role, congressional oversight, and Congress can pass legislation around elections, and they have, most famously, the Voting Rights Act.

But outside of that, the executive branch has little to no say in the operations of our elections, and it should remain that way.

- Your election office was evacuated and one of your staffers sent to the hospital after a piece of mail was received with some white powder.

What can you tell us about where that investigation stands?

- So the investigation continues.

I don't think there's been someone who's been questioned or apprehended in that case.

And thankfully, that white substance was non-toxic.

Thankfully, our employee is fine.

But it was a tough situation.

That was returned, that white powder was returned in official elections mail, mail that was sent out to every registered voter in Rhode Island.

And so, you know, it's commonplace for us to quickly open that mail and make sure that we process whatever's in that envelope.

And so it panicked our employees, our staff, who do this professionally every single day.

And I think it was an attempt to disrupt the process of elections in the country.

And I think part of that is the temperature is raised to a level where you have too many Americans who are doubting the results of elections based on what the president has said really since 2016.

And all the evidence suggests otherwise.

But if you're tuned in to the president's comments on elections and you think that your vote has been diluted or stolen, this is how some folks react.

- Speaking of the temperature being up, has your office seen an increase in threats in recent years?

- You know, I don't know if it's an increase because I have nothing to compare it to other than my time in office, but I have been threatened.

My house has been swatted.

There are internet comments that suggest Second Amendment solutions to our elections issues.

So it exists, and it exists across the landscape for secretaries of state, many of whom who have been threatened.

- One other thing we're seeing in advance of the midterms is this effort to jumpstart the redistricting process.

Republicans started this and Democrats have responded.

According to information I've seen from the Cook Political Report, there's a very minor advantage for Republicans so far.

Do you agree with that analysis or do you think, do you have other concerns about that process?

- I haven't seen the analysis, but I would say yes, from what I've read, it seems that there'll be a minor impact.

It's unprecedented for the President of the United States to ask states to redistrict mid-decade.

That's unprecedented.

The response, I suppose, is natural.

I would prefer an independent redistricting process that is similar to what California had prior to this effort to redistrict in mid-decade.

I think every state should engage, including ours, in an independent redistricting process.

- The US Supreme Court is expected to rule this session on a major case involving the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act.

How would you describe what is at stake in this case?

- If the case goes the way that it appears it will, based on the early processes in this case where the conservative justices have been leaning in their questioning toward eliminating the idea that there's a protected class and that redistricting should take into consideration, race, if that is dismantled, so too is the Voting Rights Act.

- And what would that mean in terms of the tangible effect for voters and elective representation?

- The case is based in Louisiana.

And if you look at what the redistricted map created, it created one black majority district out of six total districts in a state that had 33%, that has 33% black population.

It did exactly what the Voting Rights Act tried to prevent in 1965.

And so I think it has devastating impact on representation, especially for those protected communities.

- Your legislative priorities this year, including a Rhode Island law backing up the Voting Rights Act, why do you think that's necessary?

- We think it's important to codify the key aspects of the National Voting Rights Act as it becomes diminished over the course of the last decade.

And again, not necessarily for today, but for the future, so that if a protected class feels that they have been discriminated against in redistricting, whether that's local redistricting or state redistricting, they have recourse.

They can challenge that redistricting through the Rhode Island court system and have redress for their grievances.

Our proposal puts forward an opportunity to fix that before it gets to the courts so that an individual, which by the way is a key aspect of what has been diminished on the federal level is that if the Eighth Circuit opinion holds in the Supreme Court, the right of private action under the Voting Rights Act will be eliminated.

Our Voting Rights Act version allows right of private action from civil rights groups or individuals if they feel they've been discriminated against in the redistricting process.

- Do you expect the General Assembly to approve that proposal this year?

- I do, I do.

I think what we're doing is codifying what was one of the most significant pieces of legislation in American history.

In 2006, not very long ago, the United States Senate reauthorized the Voting Rights Act unanimously.

I think it's a key component to creating an inclusive democracy.

I tell students that I talk to all the time that the American democracy was fully created in 1965 when the Voting Rights Act was passed and barriers were taken down through process to allow American voters, all American voters, to have their voices heard.

- What does it say to you that the US Senate unanimously supported that 20 years ago, and here it is, the law is potentially under threat by the US Supreme Court.

- Yeah, I think elections matter.

And when we vote for the President of the United States, we also vote for potential Supreme Court picks.

And when we vote a certain way based on a certain issue and ignore all the other issues, this is the result.

You have a Supreme Court that is welcome to the idea that the age of discrimination in this country is over and that the 14th and 15th amendments can be interpreted differently than they were intended.

And that's sad.

- Secretary Amore, you spoke earlier about how President Trump has continued to underscore his false view that the 2020 election was stolen.

What kind of cumulative effect do you expect on democracy and the state of the nation from a full second term of President Trump?

- I think he's doubled down on his belief that the 2020 election was stolen.

I think every opportunity he has, he talks about the need for certain types of elections reform.

And as you know, our state is subject to a DOJ lawsuit around the administration of elections, as many other states, 23 or 24 states have also been.

This attempt to sow doubt around the process is part of the playbook.

When you're asking secretaries of state, elections administrators, to violate federal and state law and hand over private information from Rhode Island citizens in our case, you are undermining the confidence in elections because what you want out of that request is for people to say, "Why don't you turn that information over?

What are you hiding?"

So it's really ironic to me that someone who ran on law and order then wants secretaries of state to ignore the law, to ignore state law, to ignore federal law, the Privacy Act, the e-Government Act, and hand over information.

We are very confident that the way we maintain our voter lists is beyond what is required by federal law.

So that's a perfect example of an attempt to undermine confidence in elections.

- You say sowing doubt is part of the playbook.

What is this about?

What is the purpose?

Is it just about trying to maintain Republican control of government or do you think there's some other purpose?

- No, I think the president knows that if the House changes hands and potentially the Senate, then his agenda is stalled.

And so there's an attempt to create and wreak some havoc around elections so that that does not happen.

I don't think he'll be successful.

The states will run elections as they always have, efficiently, securely, with opportunity to cast a vote, and let the voters decide if they are in favor of or against the Trump administration's policies as they stand today.

- The president's critics say he has a lot of autocratic tendencies.

Do you think he's a threat to democracy?

- He shouldn't be.

The system of checks and balances is set up so that one person cannot threaten American democracy.

And I think it's imperative that the legislature take its proper role in this process.

These are three co-equal branches of government and they should function as such.

And we've seen the courts function as a co-equal branch of government, stopping in many cases the president's unconstitutional attempts to mandate law rather than make law.

And by the way, the Congress has the opportunity to implement all of the elections reforms that the president has asked for.

They've chosen not to do so.

The House has passed various legislation.

The Senate hasn't even taken that legislation up.

That's the process.

It's not quick.

It's designed to be slow.

It's designed to be deliberative.

But I think the Congress of the United States, the Senate, the House, members of both parties need to stand for their part in this system of checks and balances, this separation of powers.

It's important that they are representatives of their constituency first and party members second.

- You say they should stand for their part, but the House basically does whatever the president wants.

The Supreme Court seems inclined to mostly agree with President Trump.

Are you confident that checks and balances are working the way they're supposed to?

- We've seen some pushback, right?

We've seen Senator Thune push back on the president's call to eliminate the filibuster.

We've seen pushback around the Greenland situation.

We've seen some pushback specifically around the release of the Epstein files.

So we're seeing some of that.

And I think the more the president's policies become unpopular and Republican legislators see that their situation becomes more difficult in their quest for re-election, I think you'll hear more of that pushback.

But it's really unprecedented.

You have to go back to FDR to find a Congress in such lockstep with a president.

I mean, I think, you know, in yours and my experience, we've seen the members of the same party of the president push back and hold on to their authority as legislators.

- You mentioned the Department of Justice lawsuit against the state after your office declined to provide sensitive voter information requested by the DOJ.

How do you see the legal outlook in that case?

- Well, we've filed for dismissal as many of the other states have.

And we've had two states, Oregon and California, where courts have dismissed these lawsuits.

And I think that will be the case across the country.

As I mentioned before, the law stated in, the law that the DOJ uses to justify this request is just not connected with the request.

So if you're looking at the NVR, the National Voter Registration Act, if you're looking at HAVA, the Help America Vote Act, if you're looking at the Civil Rights Act of 1960, all law cited in their request, none of that applies to voterless maintenance in the way they are suggesting and that's why I think the course will dismiss these suits.

- One of your legislative priorities this year includes a proposal to allow candidates for office to collect online signatures to qualify for the ballot.

If that happens, I believe Rhode Island would be the first state to do that.

Tell us about that.

- That's correct, so right now, about 65% of our mail ballot requests are through this system in our office.

So you plug in your driver's license number or your state ID number and you request a mail ballot.

So your information is plugged in, it can be verified, and you can request a mail ballot.

We would build this platform on top of that.

A voter would go in, they'd plug in their driver's license number or identification number and a menu would appear and they could nominate any of the candidates they're eligible to nominate.

And we know that's an issue, right?

When someone's seeking signatures outside, let's say, Stop and Shop, they don't know if the person they're encountering is actually in the district that they're seeking nomination for.

And so that would eliminate this.

And for our local canvassing boards and workers and the clerks in our city and town halls, this would make the process of verification very easy because you couldn't get into the system unless you presented a valid identification number.

So the other key aspect to this is folks who are overseas, especially our military personnel, they don't have an opportunity right now to engage in the nomination process.

Folks who are disabled and can't get up to get to the door don't have an opportunity to engage in this process.

This would allow for both those groups to have that opportunity and it would, to be frank, secure the process.

So we saw in the Congressional District 1 race, the issue with some signatures.

This would prevent that.

Now, this does not eliminate the opportunity for candidates to go out with the traditional paper form, but it does enhance the process.

And I do want to point out, because I think it's been lost in the discussion around the CD1 race, is that those signatures that were on those nomination forms would never have been approved through local canvassing inquiry, because none of those people are on our voter list.

Yes, there was fraud, but it would never have reached the point where those names were counted because they were not on the list.

- Secretary Amore, you've championed the idea of creating a Rhode Island History Center to show-off some of the state's founding documents and help tell the colorful story of Rhode Island's history.

Governor McKee's latest budget includes, proposes $45 million in borrowing that would be decided by voters to help establish such a center.

Do you expect the General Assembly to support including giving voters the choice of approving that borrowing?

- Yeah, we're going to make it one of our priorities and it happens to be taking place at the same time of the nation's semiquincentennial birthday.

And Rhode Island made a similar investment in 1976 for the bicentennial where they established the Veterans Cemetery in Exeter.

We think this is an opportunity to establish the Rhode Island History Center, which by the way, we're unique among states.

We do not have a Rhode Island History Center specifically.

We do not have a state-owned archives building.

This could be a legacy project for the semiquincentennial to tell the story of Rhode Island, which by the way is a magnificent story that Rhode Islanders, Americans, people around the world should be able to access.

And right now, we cannot provide that accessibility to our many magnificent documents and artifacts that tell the story of Rhode Island.

Quickly, I'll tell you that right now at Fort Belvoir in Virginia, right near George Washington's Mount Vernon, the Rhode Island First Regiment battle flag from the American Revolution is on display in their 250 display.

So Americans from all over the country will see the Rhode Island battle flag that has not left Rhode Island since it left Yorktown at the decisive battle.

When it comes back to our state, it actually won't come back to our state.

It'll go back to Massachusetts where it'll be kept in storage so it can be preserved.

That's a shame.

That should be available for Rhode Islanders to see, preserved and protected the proper way.

- If voters approve that borrowing this year, what is the timeline for creating this Envisioned History Center?

Where would it be?

What would it look like?

- We would hope that somewhere in 2030 this would come to fruition and it will be across the street from the State House on Smith Street in front of the Department of Administration building.

So, it's a natural connection to the Statehouse where thousands upon thousands of visitors come into the building every single year.

And it would be a really fluid connection across the street to see the Rhode Island History Center and Archives.

- You mentioned how America will be celebrating its 250th anniversary this July.

Do you think the state has done enough to take advantage of this opportunity to promote tourism and its economy given how Rhode Island is spending very little money on this effort.

- Yeah, I do.

I mean, I think those that decide to travel for historical tourism reasons will find their way to Rhode Island.

And we are present at all the national events that promote our state and our team has been present at those events.

And we have spent money supporting local initiatives.

The General Assembly provided funding for our local cities and towns, as well as organizations who promote Rhode Island's history, to develop programming.

And that's happening.

We've done a great deal of professional development for our teachers in association with Ocean State Media.

Ken Burns and the American Revolution, fantastic opportunity for our teachers to learn about this and then to share that with their students.

We have some signature events, I think a water fire that will be beyond what anybody has seen before with a performance from the Philharmonic, 250 flags, major flags draped over the State House, a procession.

I think that'll be fantastic.

We have our veterans being honored with a RI-250 honor flight in May, two World War II veterans, two Korean War veterans, the rest Vietnam veterans who will be honored as part of our semiquincentennial.

There's programming across the board in all 39 citizen towns.

- Secretary Amore, you're a student of history, a former history teacher.

What comes to mind for you as America prepares to celebrate its 250th anniversary?

- I think it's a great opportunity to really reflect on the unification, the unifying aspect of the Declaration of Independence.

That's what we're celebrating, the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

And that is, in my view, the most significant human rights document in the history of the world.

And that second sentence, which talks about equality and basic human rights and self-governance, is really something that is not Republican, Democrat, independent, it's American.

There's no debate around our founding principles that are laid out in that magnificent second sentence.

This is an opportunity to unify the nation around those principles that we all deeply believe in.

- One thing, the founders did not have to concern themselves with is digital technology.

We see how things like digital fakes, artificial information is just becoming more common as you try to get out credible, accurate information about elections or people like you fighting a losing battle.

- I hope not.

We are really focused in and we've done a great job convincing the cities and towns across the state of Rhode Island to go to dot gov platforms so that residents of their city or town or even residents of the state of Rhode Island can be confident that the information they're getting on a dot gov platform is accurate information.

And when I took office, I think we had 15 or 16 citizen towns that were not on a dot gov platform.

Today, I think all but one or two are not there, and they're in the process of getting there.

You know, the secretaries of state around the country are united in our trusted information effort around elections.

Our office proposed legislation that was passed last year that would force public disclosure in advertisement if AI is used so that viewers and listeners understand that artificial intelligence is being used to create that ad.

And we've created a private right of action for those who are hurt by inaccurate information in such an advertisement.

You know, it's very difficult for many Americans to determine what's real and what's not real.

And usually you have two options then.

You either disengage or you dive all-in.

And what I'd prefer is for people to dive all-in, use their critical thinking skills, inquire, make sure what you're reading, what you're seeing, is real before you share it and before you think that it's gospel.

And I think, you know, American citizenship is really hard.

You have to be an active citizen and part of that is digging deep to determine the information you're getting is actually factual.

- Secretary of State Gregg Amore, thank you so much for joining us.

- Thanks for having me.

- Thanks for watching "One on One" with me Ian Donnis.

You can find all of our past interviews on the YouTube channel for Ocean State Media.

We'll see you next week.

(bright music)