WELCOME TO "KENTUCKY TONIGHT."

I'M RENEE SHAW.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.

OUR TOPIC TONIGHT: VOTING RIGHTS AND ELECTION LAWS.

ACROSS AMERICA MANY STATES ARE PASSING OR CONSIDERING BILLS ON ELECTION SECURITY OR EXPANDING ACCESS TO THE BALLOT BOX.

NEW LEGISLATION IN KENTUCKY APPEARS TO STRIKE THE RIGHT BALANCE, MANY SAY.

LAWMAKERS JUST APPROVED A BIPARTISAN VOTER REFORM BILL THAT SETS UP, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THREE EARLY VOTING DAYS AND A PORTAL TO REQUEST ABSENTE TO DISCUSS ALL THIS WE ARE JOINED IN LEXINGTON BY SECRETAR OF STATE MICHAEL ADAMS AND JOSHUA DOUGLAS, A UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY ELECTION LAW PROFESSOR IN OUR FRANKFORT STUDIO WE HAVE STATE REPRESENTATIVE BUDDY WHEATLEY, A DEMOCRAT FROM COVINGTON, AND STATE REPRESENTATIVE JENNIFER DECKER, A REPUBLICAN FROM WADDY.

AND IN OUR LOUISVILLE STUDIO: COREY SHAPIRO, LEGAL DIRECTOR FOR THE ACLU OF KENTUCKY, AND JAMES YOUNG, FORMER DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS IN JEFFERSON COUNTY AND CURRENT REGIONAL MANAGER WITH INCLUSION SOLUTIONS THAT WORKS WITH ELECTION ADMINISTRATORS ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO BETTER COMPLY WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES WE WANT YOU TO JOIN THE CONVERS SEND US A QUESTION OR COMMENT O TWITTER @KYTONIGHTKET.

SEND AN EMAIL TO KYTONIGHT@KET.ORG.

OR USE THE WEB FORM AT KET.ORG/KYT MAKE SURE TO CHECK THE BOX THAT SAYS YOU'RE NOT A ROBOT.

OR YOU CAN GIVE US A CALL AT 1-800-494 PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND WHERE YOU'RE FROM ON ALL MESSAG WELCOME TO ALL OF OUR GUESTS.

NEAR AND FAR, NICE QUAD BOX THROTT SCREEN.

GOOD TO HAVE YOU ALL NOR THIS VERY IMPORTANT, AND YOU WE'LL JUMP RIGHT IN.

I'LL GO TO YOU, SECRETARY.

MR. SECRETARY, MICHAEL ADAMS.

AND YOU GOVERNOR BESHEAR HAS YEAR MAYBE AROUND THIS TIME ACTUALLY STRUCK A BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT HOW TO CONDUCT THE ELECTIONS DURING THE PANDEMIC.

WHAT STUCK?

WHAT WILL BE CODIFIED INTO LAW?

AND HOW DID YOU STRIKE THIS BALANCE BETWEEN ELECTION SECURITY AND EXPANDING ACCESS, AS YOU SEE IT?

>> I TRIED TO BE BIPARTISAN FROM DAY ONE.

THE REASON THE GOVERNOR AND I WERE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE THIS IS I WENT TO THE LEGISLATURE AND ASKED THEM TO GRANT THIS DUAL AUTHORITY TO US.

DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS A YED THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A IN MANY AND REPUBLICAN IN THE ROOM WITH THE REFLECT INDEPENDENT ROOM TO SORT THIS ALL OUT, AND THEY CAMES TOGETHER ACROSS PARTY LINES AND GIVE US A AUTHORITY.

I COULD HAVE ASKED FOR IT AND PROBABLY GUNPOINT BUT FOR ME IT WAS IMPORTANT TO SHOW ALL KENTUCKIANS THAT WE WERE FAIR AND BOTH SIDES CAME TOGETHER.

THIS IS WITH A LOT OF DOUBT ON THE LEFT AND RIGHT ABOUT WHAT WE DID PUT WE BECAME A NATIONAL MODEL.

SO THAT COOPERATION LED TO BOTH BETTER POLICY BECAUSE EVERYONE'S CONCERNS WERE ADDRESSED BUT ALSO A BETTER LOOK.

IT'S A BAD LOOK WHEN YOU HAVE ONE PARTY OR OTHER TRY TO TAKE OVER THE ELECTION SYSTEM.

THAT'S WHY IN HOUSE BILL 5ING 74 WHICH I'M SURE WE'LL TALK ABOUT TONIGHT, IT WAS SOMETHING DONE ALONG BIPARTISAN LINES, AND I THINK THAT'S WHY IT'S BEEN SO WELL RECEIVED.

>>> >> SO OVER 2 MILLION KENTUCKIANS VOTED, 64% OF REGISTERED VOTERS CAST THEIR BALLOTS.

WE KNOW REPUBLICANS SHOWED UP HIGHER 68.3 COMPARED TO 63.5% DEMOCRATS SO THIS SEEMED TO HAVE BIPARTISAN APPEAL THE WAY THE ELECTIONS WERE CONDUCTED IN NOVEMBER, SO WHY MAKE CHANGES THIS TIME AROUND, IN YOUR VIEW?

AND THEN I'LL ASK REPRESENTATIVE JENNIFER DECK TORE GIVE US THE SPECIFICS OF HOUSE BILL 574 SINCE HE WAS THE LEAD SPONSOR.

>> KENTUCKY A CONSERVATIVE STATE BUT NOT IN THE WAY PEOPLE NIP WE'RE STATE THAT DOESN'T CHANGE VERY MUCH VERY QUICKLY.

WE HAVEN'T UPDATED OUR ELECTION CODE SINCE 1891.

WE WERE LONG OVERDUE FOR A CHANGE.

AND I GUESS THE SILVER LINING OF THE PANDEMIC IS IT GAVE US A REASON TO DO THAT, AND WE DID, AND WE WERE FOUND NOT JUST US BUT LOCAL OFFICIALS, THE COASTLINE CLERKS.

I CAMPAIGNED, THE COASTLINE COUNTY CLERKS DE90 LIKE EARLY VOTING.

THEY DIDN'T LIKE MOST OF THE THINGS THAT WE IMPLEMENTED AND THEY WERE A STUFF SELL AT THE GAINING AND THEY EMBRACED IT NOW.

IF WE HAD NOT LOBBIED FOR IT, YOU IT NOT HAVE PASSED.

WE'LL GET INTO DETAILS BUT THE ONE THING THAT'S REALLY THE SIGNATURE I'M NOT THIS BILL IS THE NO EXCUSE EARLY VOTING.

>> REPRESENTATIVE JENNIFER DECKER, I WANT TO COME TO YOU BECAUSE YOU WERE AMONG THREE OF THE SPONSORS IN THE HOUSE WHO MARSHALED THIS BILL, AND YOU REALLY WERE THE FRONT PERSON, I THINK I'LL SAY, FOR HOUSE BILL 574, SO CAN YOU GIVE AS YOU BASIC TENANTS, JUST A QUICK DROUGHN OF WHAT WILL BE LAW.

>> RENEE, THERE ARE A LOT OF TENANTS, IT WAS A LONG BILL, BUT I THINK PROBABLY THE HIGHLIGHT IS THE FIRST -- IT'S THE THREE DAYS OF EARLY VOTING RIGHT BEFORE ELECTION DAY.

WE DID THAT IS NO-EXCUSE WALK IN EARLY VOTING.

AND THEN WE DID PROVIDE FOR -- WELL, SECRETARY OF STATE ADAMS AND THE GOVERNOR DID NEGOTIATE AND PUT ONLINE THE REQUEST FOR MAIL-IN ABSENTEE BALLOTS.

WE KEPT THAT.

SO THE ONLY WAY IN KIK GET A MAIL-IN BALLOT IS TO GO THROUGH THE PORTAL.

SO THAT HAS TO BE DONE, IF YOU CAN'T BUB DON'T HAVE ACCESS TIE COMPUTER, YOU CAN GO TO OUR COUNTY CHLORIC CALL IN AND THE COUNTY CLERK IS REQUIRED TO HELP YOU REQUEST YOUR BALLOT, BUT THAT'S CUT OFF 14 DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION.

WE DID THAT SO THAT BY ELECTION DAY ALL WOULD BE IN AND THEY CAN BE COUNTED AND WE CAN GET THE RESULTS ON THAT NIGHT.

THAT IS A REQUIREMENT OF THE BILL, IS THAT THERE WILL BE NOT A DELAY IN LEARNING WHO WINS THE RACE.

WE DID PROVIDE FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF VOTER CENTER, VOTE CENTERS IN VAIR JUST COUNTIES.

THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED.

BUT THEY ARE PERMITTED.

AND THE COUNTY CLERKS ACTUALLY SUBMIT A PLAN TO THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS WHERE THAT IS DECIDED, WHETHER THAT CAN HAVE A NARROW PARAMETERS AROUND WHERE THE VOTE CENTERS CAN BE.

THEY HAVE TO BE EQUITABLE TO ALL VOTERS.

AND THAT IS -- THAT WAS ALLOWED IN THE EMERGENCY ORDERS FOR THE ELECTION, AND WE THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD THING.

AND WE DID PROVIDE, HOWEVER, THAT ONLY THE LEGISLATURE CAN CHANGE THESE MANNERS OF VOTING.

IT CANNOT, AGAIN, BE A DECISION LEFT TO THE GOVERNOR OR THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

IT WILL BE THE LEGISLATURE.

AND WE DID PUT IN SOME PROVISIONS, QUITE HEFTY PROVISIONS WITH PENALTIES FOR ANYTHING THAT WOULD LEAD KENTUCKIANS TO DOUBT THE INTEGRITY OF THEIR BALLOT, SO WE DID PROVIDE THAT BALLOT HARVESTING IS A FELONY AND WE PROVIDED PENALTIES FOR THAT.

>> EXPLAIN WHAT BALLOT HARVESTING IS, KEPT REPRESENTATIVE DECKER, FOR THOSE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT TERM.

>> THAT WOULD BEER WHERE ONE PERSON GOES AND COLLECTS A LARGE NUMBER OF BALLOTS OR A NUMBER OF BALLOTS AND EITHER FILLS THEM OUT OR JUST TAKES THEM FROM ITS PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE SENT TO AND BRINGS THEM AND TURNS THEM IN.

YOU CAN -- WE DID PUT PROVISIONS IN FOR WHO COULD HELP WITH AN ABSENTEE BALLOT AND WHO COULD TAKE POSSESSION OF AN ABSENTEE BALLOT, AND THEY ARE SPECIFIC PEOPLE WHO ARE CHOSEN BY THE VOTER, BUT BALLOT HARVESTING IS SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE DONE WHERE SOMEONE JUST GOES AND COLLECTS THE BALLOTS AND TURNS THEM IN.

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY TO YOUR SEATMATE IN THE FRANKFORT DECIDE WANT TO ASK REPRESENTATIVE WHEATLEY, YOU SERVE ON THE HOUSE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE, AND YOU DID OFFER SOME SUGGESTIONS ABOUT HOW TO IMPROVE HOUSE BILL 574.

YES THEY ADOPTED?

AND ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THIS BILL?

AND WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE LIKE TO HAVE SEEN INCLUDED?

>> THANK YOU, RENEE, AND THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME ON.

IT WAS FIRST PRESENTED TO OUR ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS COMMITTEE BEFORE THE BILL WAS OFFICIAL FILED, AND AT THAT TIME I REALLY GIVE REPRESENTATIVE DEREK AND THE OTHER REPRESENTATIVES D. DECKER AND THE OTHER REPRESENTATIVES CREDIT FOR INVITING ME TO HELP CRAFT THE BILL THAT WOULD EVENTUALLY BE FILED, BUT THAT WAS ONLY A COUPLE DAYS LATER.

BUT, YES, THERE WERE ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT I SUGGESTED FOR THE BILL, ADDITIONAL EARLY VOTING DAYS, OF COURSE, AND AGAIN, WHILE THREE DAYS ARE GREAT AND IT LIFTS KENTUCKY FROM BEING ONE OF THE MOST RESTRICTIVE VOTING STATES IN THE NATION TO BEING LESS ON THE RIGHT TRAJECTORY WE REALLY LIKE THAT, BUT DEMOCRATS WOULD HAVE SOME DIFFERENT IDEAS RELATED TO HOW WE CAN INCREASE THE ACCESS TO THE POLLS, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO DOING THAT.

ONE THING THAT I DID FOR THIS PARTICULAR BILL WAS I INTRODUCED AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD INCLUDE EIGHT ADOPTION EARLY VOTING DAYS.

NOW, IT WAS DEFEATED BY THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY BUT THERE WAS SOME INTEREST IN THAT, AND THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT, WELL, IT'S VERY LIKELY TO BE SOMETHING THAT'LL COME UP IN THE FUTURE, ALONG WITH A FEW OTHER VERY IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF ACCESS TO THE POLLS, AND I CONSIDER THAT BEING EARLY REGISTRATION OR SAME-DAY REGISTRATION OR SOME KIND OF VOTER MOTOR BILL THAT WOULD ALLOW REGISTRATION THAT WAY.

THIS BILL IN ITS EARLY ITERATIONS HAD A COUPLE OTHER CHANGES IN IT THAT W. WERE ATTRACTIVE AND PROVIDE MORE ACCESS.

AS WE KNOW, MAKING THE SAUSAGE IS NOT ALWAYS ATTRACTIVE AND SOMETIMES THINGS HAVE TO CHANGE A LITTLE BIT.

BUT WE DID THAT.

WE ENDED UP PASSING A REALLY GOOD BILL.

THERE'S A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED AND WE WILL BE WORKING FOR THOSE.

>> I WANT TO ASK PROFESSOR DOUGLAS BECAUSE YOU HAVE I DO NOT BEEN VERY INVOLVED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE MICHAEL ADAMS ON YOUR SUGGESTIONS ABOUT THE VOTER I.D.

BILL THAT WOULD PASS THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND IN CRAFTING THE PANDEMIC-RELATED VOTING RULES, SOME OF THEM WHICH WE JUST DISCUSSED HAVE BEEN MADE PERMANENT.

SO TELL US WHAT YOU THINK IS MISSING.

BASE KNOW YOU HAD SOME THINGS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN, AND MAYBE THAT INCLUDES BE EXPANSION OF EARLY VOTING MORE THAN JUST THE THREE DAYS, THE THURSDAY, FRIDAY AND SATURDAY BEFORE THE ELECTION.

>> YEAH.

I MEAN, I THINK THIS BILL IS A GREAT START, AND I WAS HONORED TO BE INVOLVED IN SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS.

AND LET ME SAY PEOPLE HAVE ASKED A LOT HOW DID KENTUCKY BECOME A NATIONAL MODEL IN A GOOD SENSE WHERE YOU GET OTHER STATES, I KNOW YOU PLANS TO DISCUSS OTHER STATES LIKE GEORGIA LATER IN THE SEGMENT, AND WHAT REPRESENTATIVE WHEATLEY SAID IS EXACTLY RIGHT.

IT'S THE TRAJECTORY, WHERE WE'RE STARTING FROM.

UNFORTUNATELY KENTUCKY WAS STARTING FROM A PRETTY BAD PLACE WHEN IT COMES TO VOTER ACCESS, BUT WE'RE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

AND I THINK WHAT WE SEE IN SOME OTHER STATES IS WHAT I CALL COMPROMISE IN THE BAD SENSE, THAT IS, OUR ELECTIONS ARE COMPROMISED BY LEGISLATORS WHO ARE USING THE POSITION TO CRAFT VOTING LAWS TO TRY TO ESSENTIALLY KEEPS THEMSELVES INUR POWER.

BUT WHAT WE SEE IN KENTUCKY IS COMPRONICE MICE IN THE GOOD, AND I THINK THE FACT THAT THIS BILL PASSED ON A A BIPARTISAN MEASURE IS GREAT.

YOU ASKED WHAT WOULD I LIKE TO SEE FURTHER.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE THAN THREE DAYS EARLY VOTING.

>> THREE WEEKS LIKE AVAILABLE IN 2020 OR DO YOU THINK THAT WAS TOO MUCH?

>> I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU BALANCE THAT IN TERMS OF WHAT IS NEEDED IN SOME ELECTIONS VERSUS OTHERS.

RIGHT?

>> PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR.

>> YEAH, PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION VERSUS AN OFF-YEAR ELECTION.

2020 WAS UNIQUE IN TERMS OF THE PANDEMIC WHERE FEWER PEOPLE WERE WILLING TO GO IN PERSON.

AND I THINK THE COUNTY CLERKS ARE REALLY IMPORTANT TO HELPING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE STATE NEEDS.

I THINK THREE DAYS IS TOO FEW.

THE OTHER THING I'D REALLY LIKE TO SEE US CHANGE IS THE VOTER REGISTRATION DEADLINE WHICH IS CURRENTLY 29 DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION, AND, YOU KNOW, MANY PEOPLE ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION ENOUGH TO DECIDE IF THEY DO WANT TO PARTICIPATE THIS YEAR, AND IF THEY DECIDE A WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION AND THEY HAVEN'T REGISTERED, THEY'RE TOO LATE.

WE KNOW THAT MANY STATES, DOZENS OF STATES HAVE SAME-DAY VOTER REGISTRATION WHERE THE VOTER IS ABLE TO SHOW UP TO THE POLLS AND REGISTER THE USING PROPER IDENTIFICATION METHODS AND CAST THEY THEIR BALLOT ON THE SAME DAY, AND NOT SURPRISINGLY THOSE STATES HAVE MUCH HIGHER TURNOUT WITH NO FRAUD ASSOCIATED.

SO I THINK OBVIOUSLY THIS NEEDS TO BE A PIECEMEAL PROCESS.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT 29 DAYS GET REDUCED SIGNIFICANTLY WITH THE GOAL ULTIMATELY OF EASE 10 REGISTRATION RULES.

>> YOU MENTIONED THE KEY OPERATIVE WORD FRAUD, AND WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THAT WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE VOTER I.D.

BILL -- THAT WAS 2019.

I FORGET ABOUT 2020.

THAT THAT WAS A PART OF THE JUSTIFICATION FOR ACTING ON THAT.

AND MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU, SECRETARY ADAMS.

WAS CONCERNS ABOUT VOTER INN IMPERSONATION, IN-PERSON FRAUD A CONCERN IN CRAFTING OR CONSIDERATION IN CRAFTING HOUSE BILL 574?

AND IS THERE PROOF THAT SUCH EXISTS IN KENTUCKY?

>> WELL, WE PASSED PHOTO I.D.

TO VOTE IN 2020.

IT WAS IMPLEMENTED LAST YEAR.

LET ME GIVE YOU SOME STATISTICS.

OVER 2 MILLION VOTERS VOTE IN 2020 IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.

ONLY 757 OF TO THEM VOTED WITHOUT A PHOTO I.D.

AND ALL THOSE PEOPLE GOT TO VOTE.

THEY WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE A NON-PHOTO I.D.

AND SIGN A SAY THEY HAD AN IMPEDIMENT.

WE HAVE.

EVERYTHING ELSE 2 MILLION PLUS VOTED WITH A PHOTO I.D.

WE GAVE IT FREE DIs WHO TO AM PEOPLE WHO CONTINUE AFFORD THEM.

IT WENT VERY SMOOTHLY.

I'M REALLY PROUD OF THAT.

BUT THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

THERE'S NO WAY I COULD HAVE GOTTEN ALL THIS ACCESS THROUGH WITHOUT SHOWING I WAS SERIOUS ABOUT SECURITY.

>> AND THAT WAS THE WAY TO GET IT FIRST WAS THE PHOTO I.D.

>> SURE.

IF I HADN'T HAD THE VEET WED WITH PHOTO I.D.

I COULDN'T HAVE DONE THE EXPAND ACCESS.

>> SOMETHING REAL QUICK WITH THE PHOTO I.D.

LAW IS NOT NOT ALL PHOTO I.D.

LAWS ARE THE SAME.

KENTUCKY PASSED THE PHOTO I.D.

LAW BUT IT'S ONE OF THE MORE MILD FORMS IN THAT THERE'S LOTS OF FAIL SAFE MEASURES FOR VOTERS WHO DON'T HAVE BUN THIS IS A MEASURABLE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE DETERRED THE FACT THAT I HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH HOOPS BUT BASICALLY ANYONE WHO SHOWS UP AT THE POLLS I 2 WE CRAFTED THE LAWS, AND SECRETARY ADAMS WAS GREAT IN WORKING THROUGH COMPROMISES TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LAW WOULD HAVE THOSE FAIL SAFE FOR VOTERS, AND SO I THINK THOSE NUMBERS ARE A TESTAMENT TO THE FACT THAT THE PHOTO I.D.

BILL ITSELF WAS ALSO IN MANY WAYS A GOOD KIND OF PRO MICE.

>> I WANT TO GO TO COREY SHAPIRO IN OUR LOUISVILLE STUDIO BECAUSE WERE YOU VOCAL WITH THE VOTER I.D.

BILL IN 20.

I'LL CORRECT MYSELF FOR TAKING THAT BACK TO 2019.

AND HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT HOUSE BILL 574?

ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THE FINAL RESULT, FINAL PRODUCT?

>> THANK YOU, RENEE, AND THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

I THINK THAT THAT'S THE RIGHT PIVOT HERE BECAUSE THE TALK ABOUT FRAUD IS REALLY MISPLACED BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE VERY CLEAR THAT ELECTION FRAUD IS SIMPLY NOT A PROBLEM IN KENTUCKY AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AND SO WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO BE FOCUSED ON IS HOW ARE WE GOING TO MAKE IT EASY FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE.

WHAT HOUSE BILL 574 DID WAS GIVE US A BABY STEP IN THE DIRECTION OF MAKING IT EASY TO VOTE, AND WHILE WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE BABY STEPS WITNESS AS WE ALL DO WHEN WE RAISE OUR CHILDREN, WE WANT SEE SOME BOLD STEPS.

AND WHAT I LOOK TO IS THE LEADERS OF OUR COMMONWEALTH TO BE TRUE LEADERS AND HAVE A BOLD VISION AND A BOLD LEADERSHIP TO TRULY MAKE IT EASY FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE.

HB 574 DIDN'T DO THAT.

IT DID CERTAINLY MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT EASIER.

BUT IF WE HAD A GOAL OF MAKING IT EASY TO VOTE, THAT SHOULD BE WHERE WE MOVE TO NEXT AND WHERE WE START BUILDING THAT MOMENTUM THAT I THINK REPRESENTATIVE WHEATLEY WAS TALKING ABOUT AND I THINK PROFESSOR DOUGLAS WAS REFERRING TO IN TERMS OF MAKING IT, EXPANDING IT TO EVEN BEYOND WHAT HB 574 DOES.

>> AND DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO EX MANNED VOTER ACCESS BEYOND WHAT PROFESSOR DOUGLAS AND REPRESENTATIVE WHEATLEY HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED?

>> WELL, I THINK A GOOD STARTING POINT IS TALKING ABOUT THAT THE THREE WEEKS THAT WE SAW LAST YEAR WORKED.

PEOPLE WERE REALLY HAPPY WITH HAVING THOSE THREE WEEKSCH EARLY VOTING.

I THINK ONE SATURDAY IS CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO BE ENOUGH FOR PEOPLE WHO WORK.

OUR POLLS ARE ONLY OPEN UNTIL 6:00 P.M., AND SO PEOPLE WHO WORK BE, YOU KNOW, A 9:00 TO 5:00 JOB AND HAVE TO TRAVEL, HAVING ONLY ONE FREE DAY, WHICH IS A SATURDAY, IS NOT GOING TO BE ENOUGH FOR PEOPLE.

AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE'S VOICES ARE HEARD OF HEARD.

AND SO EXPANDING THAT BEYOND THE THREE DAYS WOULD CERTAINLY BE ONE WAY.

AND ALSO WE'RE LOSING OUT ON WHAT LIGHT OF PEOPLE WERE REALLY HAPPY WITH WHICH WAS ESSENTIALLY A NO-EXCUSE MAIL-IN BALLOT.

AND RIGHT NOW WEAR BACK TO THE SAME EXCUSES WE'VE HAD SINCE TENS AND 20 SECRETARY OF STATE ADAMS REFERENCED 1891.

WE'RE IN THE 21st CENTURY.

AND WE NEED TO MAKE OUR ELECTION LAWS REPRESENT WHERE PEOPLE ARE AND MAKE IT EASY FOR THEM TO VOTE, AND NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE BALLOT IS ONE WAY TO DO THAT.

>> I WANT HAVE SECRETARY ADAMS PICK UP ON THAT.

NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE.

IF 1891 WERE THE LAST TIME THOSE EXCUSES WERE ADJUSTED MAYBE HIGH TIME AND ALSO EXTENDING THE POLLING HOURSEN BEYOND THE 6:00 P.M. TIME.

TALK TO US.

WERE NOSE CONSIDERATIONS?

>> LET'S PUT IN INTO PROTECT.

I HAVE.

THE 13 MONTHS I OFFERED A BILL TO EXTEND THE POLLING HOURS BY ONE HOUR.

NO EARLY VOTING, JUST ONE HOUR.

I COULDN'T EVEN GET THAT.

NOW WE HAVE QUADRUPLED THE NUMBER OF DAYS PEOPLE CAN GO VOTE.

WHY DON'T WE START AND SEE IF THAT MEETS THE DEMAND.

IF WE CAN'T GET EVERYBODY IN IN THREE DAYS LET'S EK EXPAND TO IT FOUR DAYS.

I'M HAPPY TO HAVE AS MANY DAYS BUT LET'S GET THE THREE WE HAVE HAD WHICH IS THE BIGGEST DEVELOPMENT WE HAVE HAD SINCE 1891.

WITH RESPECT TO THE NO EXCUSE BALLOTING I DIDN'T HAVE AN IDEOLOGICAL OBJECTION TO IT.

I WILL SAY ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL IT COSTS TWICE AS MUCH TO PROCESS A VOTE FOR AN ABSENTEE AS IT DOES FOR AN IN-PERSON VOTER.

WE THOUGHT THE EFFICIENT WAY WAS TO EXPAND THE EARLY VOTING.

EVEN IN A PANDEMIC, 77% OF KENTUCKIANS VOTED IN PERSON.

THAT'S WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO.

THAT'S OUR CULTURE AND HISTORY.

WE SHOULD RESPECT THAT.

>> TO YOUR POINT, A MAIL-IN VOTE COSTS ROUGHLY $6.50 PER VOTER COMPARED TO $3.50 FOR IN-PERSON VOTER SO YOU MADE THAT POINT ABOUT BEING DOUBLE.

>> LET ME CLARIFY, THOUGH, IF YOU'RE OLD OR YOUR SICK, IF YOU'RE A STUDENT OUT OF TOWN ON ELECTION DAY, ALL THOSE -- WE KEPT ALL THAT.

WE DIDN'T TAKE ANY OF THAT AWAY.

WE JUST DIDN'T MAILALITIES BALLOTS TO ABLE-BODIED PEOPLE WHO CAN GO AND VOTE INCLUDING A SATURDAY.

>> I WANT TO GO TO JAMES YOUNG BACK IN OUR LOUISVILLE STUDIO P. THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US THE FIRST TIME ON KENTUCKY TONIGHT SO WELCOME ABOARD.

>> THANK YOU.

>> YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN AND YOU WERE VERY VOCAL BACK IN NOVEMBER AS A FORMER ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR, YOU HAD WRITTEN AND HAD BEEN INTERVIEWED IN THE NATIONAL MEDIA ABOUT CONSPIRACY THEORIES SURROUNDING THE PRESIDENTIAL CONTEST, AND IT BEING RIGGED TO FAVOR JOE BIDEN AND TO PREVENT FRUMP FROM GETTING A SECOND TERM.

TELL -- PREVENT DONALD TRUMP FROM SECOND A SECOND TERM.

TELL US WHY YOU TOOK SUCH A BOLD STANCE AND WHAT DO YOU HOPE TO COMMUNICATE TO YOUR FELLOW REPUBLICANS WHAT YOU CALL THE BIG YOU LIE AND OTHERS CALL THE BIG LIE?

>> WHAT A WAY TO START.

LET ME SAY FIRST OF ALL SECRETARY ADAMS, JENNIFER DECKER, REPRESENTATIVE DECKER AND REPRESENTATIVE WHEATLEY SHOULD BE APPLAUDED FOR WORKING ACROSS THE AISLE TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THE NATIONAL MEDIA IS LOOKING FOR THEM TO DO.

THEY CERTAINLY ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE NATIONAL MEDIA, BUT IT'S WORKING TOGETHER TO PASS BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION TO MOVE ELECTION REFORM FORWARD.

I THINK SECRETARY ADAMS SAID JUST EARLIER TODAY CHANGE IS LONG OVERDUE.

THAT USUALLY MEANS THAT CHANGE MEANS MONEY, AND IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT I HOPE REPRESENTATIVE DECKER AND REPRESENTATIVE WHEATLEY ARE COMMITTING TO TODAY, IS TO FUNDING A LOT OF THE CHANGES THAT THEY HAVE JUST SIGNED ON FOR.

THE BIG LIE, AS A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE DEEMED IT, REALLY HASN'T HAD MUCH OF AN EFFECT ON KENTUCKY, WHICH I'M PROUD ABOUT.

ONE OF THE BIGGEST MYTHS OUT THERE IS THAT DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS BELONGS A VANSAN OR A COMPANY SMOLT SMART MATIC HAS ANY BUSINESS DIES TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY MI IF SECRETARY ADAMS ISN'T CHUCKLING NOW HE SHOULD.

IT'S A FARCE.

IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE HAVE SOME MEMBERS OF OUR OWN LEGISLATURE WHO ECHOED THAT IN RECENT HISTORY.

WE SHOULD FEEL VERY SECURE IN OUR TWO VOTING MACHINE COMPANIES AND THE STATE THAT THEY OPERATE SECURE.

IT'S ALSO A MYTH IN KENTUCKY THAT OUR VOTING MACHINES ARE DETECTED INTERNET.

OUR COUNTY CLERKS, OUR COUNTY SHERIFFS, THEIR COORDINATION WITH THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, THEY TAKE GREAT PRIDE IN OUR ELECTIONS PROCESS, AND OUR POLL WORKERS SHOULD TAKE GREAT PRIDE.

THESE PEOPLE STAY UP ALL DAY.

THEY WORK 12-PLUS HOURS AT THE POLLS THEMSELF AND THEY TAKE GREAT PRIDE AND YOU SHOULD SIGN UP TOO.

>> I DO WANT TO ASK YOU YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT HOW YOU THINK, PERHAPS NOT IN KENTUCKY, BUT ELSEWHERE WHERE THESE CONSPIRACY THEORIES WERE MORE PROMINANT, HOW THAT AFFECTS ELECTIONS 1st LIKE YOU USED TO BE AND OTHERS WHO WERE THE IN BUSINESS OF RUNNING OUR ELECTIONS.

DO YOU THINK IT DAMAGES THEIR PERCEPTION OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS AND DEMOCRACY ITSELF?

>> IT CERTAINLY DOES.

IT'S TAKEN A TOLL.

I WAS IN GEORGIA ON ELECTION NIGHT.

BY THE TIME I WENT BACK FOR THE RUNOFF ELECTION A MONTH OR SO LATER, A NUMBER OF THE INDIVIDUALS HAD ALREADY RETIRED OR HAD WILLINGLY LEFT THEIR POSITIONS.

I WAS IN ALABAMA ON -- JUST IN JANUARY, AND I HAD A PROBATE JUDGE WHO HANDLES ELECTIONS IN ALABAMA TELL ME THAT IN THEIR TIGHT-KNIT COMMUNITY THAT PEOPLE THEY WENT TO CHURCH WITH, VOTERS, WERE COMING INTO THEIR OFFICE AND SAYING, HOW COULD YOU LET THIS HAPPEN?

THE STEAL, THE FIX WAS IN.

AND THIS PROCEEDITIC BATE JUDGE JUST COULDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT ALL OF THIS WAS JUST MADE UP OVERNIGHT FROM CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AND TALKING POINTS, AND IT REALLY IS A MYTH, AND AGAIN WE SHOULD TAKE PRIDE THAT OUR COUNTY CLERKS, OUR STATE BOARD AND OUR COUNTY BOARD AND OUR SECRETARY STATE HAVE TAKEN THESE ISSUES SERIOUSLY.

>> I WANT TO GO BACK TO REPRESENTATIVE DECKER IN OUR FRANKFORT STUDIO AND ASK YOU THE QUESTION THAT MR. YOUNG JUST BROUGHT UP ABOUT HOW MUCH HOUSE BILL 574, HOW MUCH THOSE REFORMS COST, AND DID THE LEGISLATURE MAKE PROVISION FOR THAT.

>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE REQUIRED MORE MONEY EXCEPT FOR THE EARLY VOTING, WHICH WILL REQUIRE MORE POLL WORKERS ON DAYS THAT WE NORMALLY WOULDN'T.

WE DID COMMIT TO LOOKING AT THE REIMBURSEMENT RATE FOR THE COUNTY.

THE COUNTIES DO HAVE MANDATES TO CARRY OUT WHATEVER WE GIVE THEM, AND WE HAVE NOT KEPT UP WITH THE COST OF ELECTIONS, SO WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THAT.

WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT YET.

WE WILL.

BECAUSE, AS YOU MENTIONED, THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF VOTES COST DIFFERENT MONEY, AND WE HAVE REQUIRED MORE MONEY TO BE SPENT.

MORE MONEY WILL HAVE TO BE SPENT ON ELECTION MACHINES AS THEY AGE, AND WE HAVE ONE PART OF THE BILL WAS THAT AS YOU BUY NEW MACHINES, THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE PAPER BALLOTS, WHICH ARE THEN -- THAT'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF SYSTEM, SO THAT WILL COST MONEY.

BUT THAT WOULD HAPPEN ANYWAY BECAUSE THE MACHINES DO AGE.

SO WE ARE -- WE ARE LONG OVERDUE IN REIMBURSING COUNTIES FOR THESE ELECTION COSTS.

>> AND WHY IS THE PAPER BALLOT SO IMPORTANT?

WHOEVER WA JUMPING IN, I'LL LET YOU DO SO.

WHY IS THE PAPER BALLOT SO IMPORTANT?

>> THE PAPER BALLOT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT CAUSES A PAPER TRAIL FOR AN AUDIT.

IT IS NOT A MACHINE THAT CAN MALFUNCTION OR A MACHINE THAT CAN BE MANIPULATED.

THE PAPER BALLOTS ARE WHAT I THINK GIVES THE VOTER THE MOST -- THE BEST FEELING OF INTEGRITY.

I BELIEVE THAT IF VOTERS FEEL THAT THEIR VOTE WILL COUNT, IT IS HUMAN NATURE TO WANT TO HAVE A VOICE IN YOUR GOVERNMENT.

I THINK THE MORE INTEGRITY THE BALLOT HAS, THE MORE VOTER TURNOUT WILL OCCUR.

WE DIDN'T WRITE A BIPARTISAN BILL.

I THINK WE WROTE A NON-PARTISAN BILL.

AND I THINK THE PAPER BALLOT IS A NON-PARTISAN MATTER.

I THINK EVERYTHING WE DID WAS NON-PARTISAN.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW THE PARTISANSHIP COUNTY CLERKS, FOR EXAMPLE.

WE WORKED WITH THEM.

OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE A VOTING BILL THAT WILL CAUSE VOTERS TO FEEL BOOED DB PLAN THEIR VOTE GOOD ABOUT THEIR VOTE.

MAJORITIES CHANGE.

IT WOULD BE A TRAVESTY IF ELECTION LAW CHANGED WITH MAJORITIES.

WE FEEL WE PRODUCED A NON-PARTISAN BILL THAT VOTERS WILL FEEL COMFORTABLE ABOUT AND GO OUT AND VOTE, AND THE PAPER BALLOT I THINK IS EVERYTHING EVERYONE AGREES ON.

IT CREATES AN AUDIT TRAIL AND MAKES PEOPLE FEEL SECURE.

>> RENEE, I WAS GOING TO JUMP IN THERE, IF THAT'S OKAY.

>> SURE, GO AHEAD.

>> MR. YOUNG BROUGHT UP THE SPENDING ON ELECTIONS, AND THIS POINT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP A FEW TIMES BY DEMOCRATS, AND I ESPECIALLY LIKE WHAT REPRESENTATIVE DECKER JUST SAID ABOUT MAJORITIES CHANGING, BUT WE SAY AT WHAT COST DEMOCRACY.

SO WHILE WE DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY ALLOCATE DOLLARS THAT I'M AWARE OF, RELATED TO ELECTIONS -- RELATED TO THIS BILL, THERE ARE DOLLARS AVAILABLE AND DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE FEDERAL DOLLAR STIPULATIONS ARE BUT WE FEEL THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME FORECASTER DOLLARS X-RAYS, WE SHOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT, AND JUST FOR THAT REASON, TO EXPAND DEMOCRACY AND EXPAND ACCESS TO THE POLLS.

>> I DO WANT TO NOW MOVE TO TALK ABOUT SOME OTHER STATES AND WHAT THEY'VE DONE, AND ONE STATE IN PARTICULAR HAS BEEN ON OUR MIND, AND THAT'S GEORGIA.

BAD PUN, I'M SORRY.

I'M NOT AS GOOD AS SECRETARY ADAMS THE ON JOKES.

THAT IS FOR SURE.

IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW HIM ON TWITTER, YOU REALLY SUDDEN.

LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW WE STACK UP WITH GEORGIA, AND I WANT TO GO TO JAMES YOUNG FIRST ON THIS BECAUSE YOU MADE A POINT WHEN WE TALKED ON PHONE THAT REALLY HOUSE BILL 574 AND THE GEORGIA LAW DON'T DIFFER BY THAT MUCH EXCEPT FOR A COUPLE OF KEY COMPONENTS.

SO WHY IS GEORGIA GETTING ALL THE HEAT?

>> I THINK GEORGIA -- I REMEMBER TEXTING A FEW INDIVIDUALS ON ELECTION NIGHT AND SAID THE POLITICAL WINDS ARE BLOWING IN GEORGIA.

I THINK GEORGIA IS A VERY PARTICULARIZED STATE AT THE MOMENT DUE TO OBVIOUSLY CORPORATION CAN BE CORPORATIVE SPONS RESPONSE.

A POLITICAL SHIFT GEORGIA CERTAINLY SAW A LOT OF POLITICAL SHIFTING DUE TO EXPANSION OF A LOT OF I THINK WHAT WE SAW WITH THE FEAR IN KENTUCKY, TEMPORARY EXPANSIONS THROUGH SECRETARY AND GOVERNOR WITH TEMPORARY POWER.

AS IT RELATES TO THE TWO BILLS, I DO THINK THERE ARE SOME SIMILARITIES.

THERE ARE CERTAINLY SOME DIFFERENCES.

I DO THINK PERSONALLY GEORGIA ELECTION ADMINISTRATORS CALLED FOR, THROUGH MY EXPERIENCES, MY CONVERSATIONS ON THE GROUND WITH THE ADMINISTRATORS, A LOT OF THEM CALLED FOR SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE IN THE BILL.

CERTAINLY IT IS NOT A BILL THAT IS IN TOUCH WITH EVERYONE IN THE STATE.

I THINK THAT NATIONAL MEDIA HAS CERTAINLY HARPED ON PARTICULAR ITEMS IN THE BILL THAT MAY SOUND WORSE THAN THEY ARE.

THAT'S THE NUTSHELL.

>> AND WE KNOWY PROFESSOR DOUGLAS HILL WILL GIVES MORE OF A NET SHELL.

A BAN ONnd HANG OUT FOOD AND WATER WITHIN 100 FEET OF A POLLING PLACE.

WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THAT OR WITHIN 25 FEET OF ANY VOTER.

IT SHRINKS THE WINDOW FOR VOTERS TO REQUEST A MAIL BALLOT.

A LIMIT ON THE THE NUMBER OF DROP BOXES DURING EARLY VOTING.

WHAT ARE THE OTHER, I WON'T CALL THEM SINS AS YOU MAY PERCEIVE THEM OF GEORGIA LAW THAT YOU THINK JUSTIFIES SOME OF THE CORPORATE BACKLASH.

>> FIRST OF ALL, I THINK YOUR GEORGIA EX JUROR JUST PEACH.

>> THANKS.

I FEEL VINDICATED.

>> MY STUDENTS KNOW MY PUNS IN THE CLASSROOM WOULDN'T HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY.

SO I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS IS THE DIRECTION.

WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE.

THE DIRECTION THAT KENTUCKY IS TAKING AS COMPARED TO GEORGIA WHERE GEORGIA IS RESTRICTING ACCESS TO THE BALLOT.

NOW, THERE'S REALLY ONLY ONE SHOW OF CALLED EXPANSION IN THE GEORGIA LAW WHICH IS TO MAKE PERMANENT SOME ADDITIONAL EARLY VOTING DAYS, BUT OTHERWISE THEY DO THINGS LIKE MAKE DROP BOXES UNAVAILABLE AFTER HOURS, AND SO DROP BOXES HAVE TO BE LOCATED INSIDE AN EARLY VOTING CENTER, AND WHEN THAT EARLY VOTING CENTER CLOSES AT 5:00 OR 7:00 P.M., YOU CAN'T DROP YOUR BALLOT OFF, AND THAT MAKES NO SENSE.

WE KNOW FROM THE EXPERIENCE OF STATES LIKE KENTUCKY THAT YOU CAN HAVE SECURE DROP BOXES THAT ARE UNDER SURVEILLANCE, THAT ARE EMPTIED PERIODICALLY TO AVOID ANY SORT OF FRAUD THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

CUTTING THE WINDOW WHEN PEOPLE CAN REQUEST AN ABSENTEE BALLOT, IF YOU JUST LOOK AT THE GEORGIA TIMELINE ADVICE IN OTHER STATE'S TIMELINE, YOU'D SEE THAT YOO IS MORE EXPANSIVE BUT THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT QUESTION TO ASK.

THE RIGHT QUESTION IS, ONE, ARE YOU EXPANDING OR RESTRICTING, AND, TWO, WHAT'S THE PURPOSE?

AND I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT IN GEORGIA WHERE YOU SEE A FULLY PARTISAN PROCESS AS A RESPONSE TO THE DEMOCRATIC GAINS IN THE 2020 ELECTION, AND A RESPONSE TO AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION INCREASING AND TENDING TO VOTE FOR ONE PARTY, THAT IT REALLY BEGINS TO QUESTION WHY ARE YOU TARGETING THE KIND OF -- THE KIND OF VOTING PROCESSES THAT CERTAIN COMMUNITIES USE.

SO I THINK IT'S JUST A FALLACY TO DO AN APPLES-TO-APPLES COMPARISON OR PEACHES TO PEACHES, I SHOULD SAY, BUT INSTEAD LOOK AT A WHAT DIRECTIONS ARE YOU DOING?

BUT TO ME THE MOST CONCERNING ONES ARE THE SHRINKING OF THE ABSENTEE BALLOTING WINDOW AND IN PARTICULAR THE ACCESS TO DROP BOXES.

>> SECRETARY ADAMS, THERE'S A GENERAL WIDE ASSUMPTION THAT REPUBLICANS WHO ARE FOR ELECTION SECURITY DIFFER FROM DEMOCRATS WHO WANT VOTING ACCESS, AND THAT DEMOCRATS ACCRUES REPUBLICANS ARE VOTER SUPPRESSION IN THE LAWS THAT THEY ARE CRAFTING, AND THESE REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED LEGISLATURE ACROSS THE NATION.

JUST YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT.

HOW DO YOU VIEW THE PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCES ABOUT HOW REPUBLICANS VIEW ELECTION SECURITY AND LUMPS VIEW EXPANDED ACCESS?

>> THAT'S WHY THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE IN A BIPARTISAN WAY.

THIS IS AN OVERSTATEMENT.

BUT DEMOCRATS HAVE FOCUS ON ACCESS AND NOT MUCH THOUGHT TO SECURITY.

I THINK THAT VOTER FRAUD IS TOTALLY A MINUTES ON THE RIGHT YOU HAVE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE OBSESSIVELY WORRIED ABOUT SECURITY.

THE TRUTH IS ACTUALLY IN THE MIDDLE.

THAT'S WHAT MADE THIS APPROACH GOVERNOR AND I BROUGHT LAST YEAR IN THIS LEGISLATION, AND THE APPROACH THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THIS SO SUCCESSFUL IS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ONE OR THE OTHER.

IN FACT THEY ACTUALLY END ANSWER EACH OTHER.

I'M GIVE AUN EXAMPLE.

THE ABSENTEE BALLOT REQUEST PORTAL IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR A VOTER TO GET AN ABSENTEE VOTER AND HELPS US TRACK OUR ABSENTEE BALLOT.

ALSO HELPS ME TRACK BALLOT.

WE ARE ABLE TO SECURE THAT BALLOT.

, INC. MON FOR FOR LOST OR STOLEN BALLOTS IT'S TRANSPARENT FOR ME, THE COUNTY CLERK, SO IT HELPS US WITH BOTH ACCESS AND SECURITY.

ANOTHER POINT EARLY VOTING.

THIS HAD NEVER OCCURRED TO ME UNTIL THE REACTION WAS OVER BUT I WAS TOLD BY A CAREER PROSECUTOR WHO FIGHTS ELECTION FRAUD CASES HERE IN KENTUCKY.

HE TOLD ME THIS WAS IN HIS VIEW THE MOST SECURE AND SAFE AND FREE ELECTION HE HAD EVER SEEN IN KENTUCKY BECAUSE OF THE EARLY VOTING.

IT'S HARDER TO RUN THE VOTE-BUYING ORIGINALS OVER MULTIPLE DAYS AND IT'S EASIER FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO MONITOR THE ELECTION OVER MULTIPLE DAYS INSTEAD OF ONE DAY OF CHAOS.

SO WHEN YOU ENHANCE ACCESS, YOU ENHANCE SECURITY AND VICE VERSA.

>> THIS QUESTION TO YOU FROM DREW SHY ROCK IN LOUISVILLE TO SECRETARY ADAMS, IN GEORGIA WHY WERE BALLOTS RECOUNTED THREE TIMES?

WHAT'S THE ADVANTAGE OF DURING A RECOUNT IF IT LED TO THE SAME OUTCOME?

>> THEY HAVE HAD THEIR OWN UNIQUE LAWS.

IT WAS A REMEDY FOR THAT LITIGATION AND, OF COURSE, THE RESULT CAME OUT THE SAME WAY.

A QUICK POINT.

IF KENTUCKY HAD PASSED WHAT GEORGIA PASSED WORD FOR WORD, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GREAT QUESTIONS, I THINK, FOR DEMOCRATS IN THEIR VIEW, BUT THERE'S A DOUBLE STANDARD FOR GEORGIA.

I THINK JOSH'S POINT IS RIGHT.

IT'S A BAD LOOK IF JUST ONE PARTY.

AND FRIES TO TIGHTEN ONE SIDE OF THAT SPECTRUM AND NOT THE OTHER SIDE.

YOU SEE THE SAME INNING IN WASHINGTON D.S.

NANCY PELOSI IS TRYING TO PASS A BILL THAT WOULD STRIKE DOWN ONEY WE JUST PASSED HERE IN KENTUCKY.

>> I WANT TO TO GO COREY SHAPIRO TO ASK YOU AS YOU LOOK AT THE LANDSCAPE OF BILLS THAT ARE GOING THROUGH STATE LEGISLATURE ACROSS THIS COUNTRY, ARE THERE ANY PARTICULAR STATES THAT REALLY STICK OUT TEWES WARNING SIGNALS TO KENTUCKY THAT IF YOU'RE CONSIDERING FUTURE REFORMS, DON'T GO THERE?

>> WELL, I MEAN, I THINK PROFESSOR DOUGLAS TALKED ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT ARE GOING ON IN GEORGIA.

THE ATTACK, THE ATTACKS ON VOTING ACCESS IN GEORGIA AND THE RESTRICTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN IPAD HAVE LED TO THREE DIFFERENT LAWSUITS BEING BROUGHT AGAINST THAT LEGISLATION.

AND I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT WHAT NOT TO DO, I THINK THE IDEA IS HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD, WHICH IS TO NOT -- WHICH IS TO PASS LAWS LIKE WE PASSED HERE, WHICH IS LIKE HB 574 AND MAKE VOTING EASIER.

I THINK ANY TIME THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS PASSED, IT'S GOING TO CAUSE PEOPLE TO QUESTION WHETHER THEY'RE TARGETING CERTAIN COMMUNITIES, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'D LIKE TO AVOID.

YOU KNOW, I THINK IT IS A THEME AND A TREND THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, AND WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO SEE THAT THAT TREND IS NOT HAPPENING HERE AND WE'RE MOVING FORWARD.

AS I SAID BEFORE, IT'S MOVING FORWARD IN A BABY STEP ANDY HOPEFULLY WE CAN USE THAT MOMENTUM AND GO FARTHER AND SEE SOME BOLD VISIONS AND SOME GOOD LEADERSHIP ON MOVING THIS EVEN FARTHER NEXT YEAR.

>> REPRESENTATIVE WHEATLEY, I WANTED TO ASK YOU THE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT IS PERCEIVED AS A PARTISAN DIVIDE OVER THIS ISSUE OF ELECTION SECURITY VERSUS VOTER ACCESS EXPANSION.

DO YOU SEE IT THAT WAY?

>> YOU KNOW, LIGHT OF GOOD POINTS HAVE BEEN MADE ABOUT THIS RELATED TO ONE PARTY SEES IT ONE WAY, ONE PARTY SEES IT ANOTHER, AND SECRETARY ADAMS REFERRED TO THE BIGGEST CHANGE IN VOTING IN KENTUCKY SINCE 1891, BUT ALSO REFERRED TO CULTURE AND HISTORY IN THE STATE OF KENTUCKY, AND WE ARE SLOW TO MAKE CHANGES.

AND IT SEEMED LIKE THE CHANGES OR THE VERY SLOW EBB OF ANYTHING THAT WAS HAPPENING FOR ALMOST THE FIRST PART OF THAT 100 YEARS WAS TO MAKE IT A LITTLE STRICTER ACCESS TO THE POULTS OR AT LEAST MORE RULES, MORE LAWS RELATED TO VOTING WHEN IT WASN'T NECESSARILY OPENING UP THE VOTE -- ACCESS TO THE POLLS, AND WE STARTED IS TO SEE, AND I THINK THIS WAS IN THE '90S, MAYBE THE EARLY 2000s, OTHER STATES STARTED TO EXPAND.

THEY TOOK THE TRAJECTORY OF EXPANDING VOTING RIGHTS.

AND THAT HAS PERHAPS BEEN MORE OF A DEMOCRATIC WAY OF LOOKING AT WE NEED TO INCREASE VOTER TURNOUT.

AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, IN MY PARTY'S VIEW, VOTER SUPPRESSION IS AIMED AT COMPRESS SUPPRESSING THE PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE GOING TO TURN OUT, IF THEY DO, IF WE'VE GREATER TURNOUT, AND THAT IS PEOPLE WHO WILL VOTE BLUE OR VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS, AND THAT'S THE PERCEPTION THERE.

YOU KNOW, I COULD KIND OF AGREE WITH THAT PHILOSOPHY BUT I REALLY DO LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING THAT KIND OF BALANCE.

IT'S HOW THINGS GET DONE.

THERE IS SOME INFORMATION, SOME STATISTICS FROM THE BRENNAN CENTER ABOUT HOW MANY POSITIVE ACCESS VOTING BILLS THERE ARE, SOMETHING LIKE 800 OF THEM AS OF LATE MARCH FOR THIS YEAR AND SOMETHING LIKE 350 RESTRICTIVE BILLS.

AND THOSE WERE IN BLUE AND RED STATES.

AND AT LEAST IN THIS CASE FOR HOUSE BILL 574, THERE WAS THE BIPARTISAN WORK.

WE DO HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO.

I BELIEVE IN SOME OF THE BOLD STEPS THAT 4 SHAPIRO REFERRED TO, BUT WE RECOGNIZE THAT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN.

LOOK, WE ALSO RECOGNIZED WE HAVE -- WE ARE IN A MARINATE, A SUPER MINTER IF YOU MINORITY.

WE ARE WILLING TO TALK AND BE AT THE TABLE.

>> GO AHEAD, REPRESENTATIVE DECKER.

>> I JUST NEED TO WEIGH IN HERE BECAUSE I DO NOT BUY INTO THIS PREMISE THAT REPUBLICANS WANT STRICTER RULES AND LESS TURNOUT.

PERCEPTION IS THAT MORE VOTERS WOULD VOTE BLUE.

WE HAD THE HIGHEST VOTER TURNOUT EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THIS STATE, AND THE GOP WON BIG.

SO I DON'T BUY INTO THE PREMISE THAT -- I WAS A PARTY CHAIRMAN FOR QUITE SOME TIME, A REPUBLICAN PARTY CHAIRMAN IN MY COUNTY.

WE WORKED HARD TO GET VOTER TURNOUT UP.

I CONSIDER IT A WIN EVERY TIME VOTER TURNOUT IS UP.

I BELIEVE WHAT WE WANT IS FOR EVERY REGISTERED VOTER, EVERY LEGALLY REGISTERED VOTER IS EVEN BETTER, EVERY REGISTERED VOTER TO VOTE, AND I BELIEVE CONSERVATISM WINS EVERY TIME IT'S TRIED, SO I DON'T THINK IT'S A CORRECT STATEMENT TO SAY THAT WE WANT LESS VOTER TURNOUT, THINKING THAT WILL PROTECT THE GOP.

THAT JUST HAS BEEN PROVEN ENTIRELY FALSE.

AND IT CERTAINLY HASN'T BEEN TRUE WITH ME OR MY PARTY WHERE I COME FROM.

SO WE WORK TO GIVE -- IN FACT, WE HAVE SENT OUT CARDS TO EDUCATE VOTERS TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS HOW TO VOTE.

WE HAVE VOTER REGISTRATION DRIVES EVERYWHERE WE CAN HAVE THEM.

WE DON'T JUST REGISTER REPUBLICANS.

WE REGISTER EVERYBODY TO COMES TO REGISTER.

I BELIEVE THAT'S A FALSE PREMISE.

>> SECRETARY ADAMS, THIS QUESTION FOUR AND THEN I WANT TO PIGGYBACK ON SOMETHING REPRESENTATIVE DECKER SAID.

THIS FROM LILLIAN BASSETT SAYS SHE'S WORKED AT THE POLLS IN KENTUCKY FOR 25 YEARS HOW ARE THE DROP BOXES GOING TO BE SECURE?

AND HOW ARE YOU MAKING SURE THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS FOR THE FRAUDULENT?

>> WELL, TWO-PART QUESTION.

THE FIRST PART IS THE DROP BOXES.

LET'S ME AGAIN OFFER SOME PERSPECTIVE.

THE DROP BOXES WERE CONTROVERSIAL IN CALIFORNIA AND TEXAS.

THERE WAS LITIGATION OVER THEM.

THERE WAS A PARTISAN WIDE OVER THEM.

WE DID THEM HERE IN KENTUCKY AND THEY WERE ACCEPTED BY BOTH SIDES P THAT'S WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU DEPOLITTIZE THE ADMINISTRATION.

SO THE DROP BOXES, THEY HAVE TO BE MONITORED 24/7.

IN THE PRIMARY HEAD TO BE LOCATED INDOORS BUT TO PROFESSOR DOUGLAS' POINT IT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE.

IT DOESN'T GIVE MUCH MORE CONVENIENCE THAN YOU ALREADY HAVE, SO THEY CAN BE OUTDOORS BUT THEY HAVE TO BE MONITORED 24/7 BY LAW ENFORCEMENT.

WITH RESPECT TO THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS, THEY ARE ACTUALLY MORE SECURE NOW THAN THEY WERE WHEN I TOOK OFFICE INITIALLY LAST YEAR FOR THIS REASON: WE NOW HAVE A COUPLE OF -- IN THIS BILL, TWO THINGS THAT WE DID, TEMPORARY POWERS ARE NOW MADE PERMANENT.

ONE IS THE PORTAL.

THE PORTAL VER NICE THE VOTER'S IDENTITY.

NUMBER TWO, WE HAVE THE CURE PROCESS.

AND THIS, TOO, EXPANDS ACCESS AND SECURITY.

I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.

IN 2018, THE LAST FEDERAL ELECTION BEFORE I GOT HERE, 7.5% OF THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS WERE THROWN IN THE GARBAGE AND THE VOTERS WEREN'T EVEN TOLD ABOUT IT, THE REASON BEING THE SIGNATURE LOOK DIFFERENT WITH THEY SIGNED THEIR ABSENTEE BALLOT ENVELOPE THAN WHEN THEY REGISTERED TO VOTE 20, 30 YEARS PREVIOUS.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS OUTRAGEOUS.

>> THAT'S WHAT YOU CALL THE CURE PROCESS.

>> THE CURE PROCESS.

SO NOW WE TEAL ASK THE VOTER, HEY, IS THIS YOUR SIGNATURE OR NOT YOU?

ENHANCE ACCESS BECAUSE YOU GET THAT VOTER A CHANCE TO PROVE IDENTITY AND GET THAT BALLOT COUNTED BUT YOU ALSO ENHANCE SECURITY BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE A LEAD ON POTENTIAL IMPERSONATION IF IT'S NOT HER SIGNATURE.

>> SO A POINT THAT REPRESENTATIVE DECKER MADE ABOUT, I THINK SHE SAID ABOUT PURGING VOTERS AND THIS IS A PART OF 574 AS WELL ABOUT PURGING VOTERS FROM THE ROLLS IF THEY NO LONGER LIVING IN THE STATE.

TELL BUS THAT PROCESS FOR VERIFYING THEIR LOCATION, THAT THEIR NOT ALSO VOTING IN TWO DIFFERENT STATES.

>> WE'VE BEEN VERY VIGOROUS ABOUT MAINTAINING THE VERT ROLLS.

IT'S NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE.

WHEN WENT TELL GORED WAS GOVERNOR HE THREW OUT THE VOTER ROLLS AND MADE EVERYBODY REREGISTER BECAUSE THEY WERE A MESS.

WHEN HE GOT TO THE U.S. SENATE ONE OF THE BIGGEST BILLS WAS THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT THAT REQUIRED THE STATES TO CLEAN UP THEIR ROLLS.

IT WAS ISLAND BY PRESIDENT CLINTON.

BUT THERE WAS A LOOPHOLE IN IT.

THE IF WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT SOMEONE HAS MOVED OUT OF OUR STATE AND IS VOTING IN SOME OTHER STATE WEEK ACTIVELY VOTING, WE CAN'T TAKE THEM OFF UNLESS YE BET WRITTEN CONSENT OR WE WAIT TWO TWO FEDERAL GENERAL ELECTION CYCLES.

EVERY WEEK LIMB GET GET MAIL FROM THE IT DOESN'T MATTER OF STATE FROM MONTANA OR TEXAS OR WHATEVERY & I THINK THÈY THÈ SI BE A HERE'S 1 PUN HEMA THAT CAME FROM OUR-TO-OUR STATE AND REREGISTER THEM AND TAKE THEM YOU OF OFF YOUR STATE BUT WE COULDN'T.

WE HAVE CLOSED THAT LOOPHOLE.

>> WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT CONGRESS IS CONSIDERING, HR 1 FOR THE PEOPLE ACT, AND LAST WEEK ON THE SENATE FLOOR KENTUCKY'S SENIOR SENATOR MITCH McCONNELL MADE THESE REMARKS.

>> THIS BE ISN'T ABOUT RESPONDING TO RECENT STATE LAWS.

IT'S NOT ABOUT JUSTICE OR EQUITY.

WASHINGTON DEMOCRATS WANT TO REWRITE ALL 50 STATES' ELECTION LAWS.

THEY WANT TO TAKE OVER THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION.

THEY'VE BEEN TRYING OUT DIFFERENT JUSTIFICATIONS FOR MULTIPLE YEARS STRAIGHT TO GET WHAT THEY WANT.

ANY FEDERAL LAW ADDRESSING THE GROUND RULES OF OUR DEMOCRACY HAS A SPECIAL OBLIGATION TO BE SOBER, TO BE FACTUAL, AND TO BE BIPARTISAN.

>> SO THAT'S HIS CHARACTERIZATION OF HR 1 THAT'S NOT SOAK WESH FACTUAL OR BIPARTISAN IN HIS TERMS.

I WANT TO ASK YOU, PROFESSOR DOUGLAS, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF HR 1 AND HOW WOULD IT AFFECT WHEN KENTUCKY JUST ASKED?

>> I A H BINS ABOUT HER HER WHICH HR 1 WHICH P. IP IT WOULD INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSIONS FOR THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS THAT'S ABOUT TO START.

IT WOULD REQUIRE EXPANDED VOTER ACCESS THROUGH REGISTRATION RULES AND THROUGH EARLY VOTING.

ONE MYTH ABOUT H THE R1 THAT'S BEEN FLOATING OUT THERE IS THAT IT'S SOMEHOW UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

THAT IS JUST PATENTLY WRONG BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION GIVES CONGRESS THE ABILITY TO MAKE OR ALTER ELECTION REGULATIONS.

SO ARTICLE 1, SECTION 4 SAYS THAT STATES DETERMINE HOW TO RUN THEIR ELECTIONS IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, BUT THAT CONGRESS MAY MAKE OR ALTER THOSE REGULATIONS, SO CONGRESS CERTAINLY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO MOST OF THE THINGS THAT ARE IN HR1.

IN TERMS OF POLICY, I THINK THESE THINGS ALL MAKE A LOT OF SENSE.

THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE PROVEN, AND REALLY WHAT HR 1 US THE IS TAKES THE BEST PRACTICES FROM STATES LIKE COLORADO AND OCCURRING THAT HAVE PROVEN TO YOU TO RUN -- OCCURRING THAT HAVE PROVEN TO YOU TO FOLLOW.

UTAH IS A SO-CALLED PURPLE STATE IN COLORADO, A RED STATE IN UTAH, A BLUE STATE IN OCCURRING AND TAKING THE BEST PRACTICES FROM THOSE STATES AND MAKING THEM FEDERAL.

SO I THINK FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE THESE THINGS MAKE A HECK OF A LOT OF SENSE.

THOUGH I DO AGREE WITH WHAT SCATTERED DAMS HAS SAID BEFORE WHICH IS THAT ELECTION ADMINISTRATION, I THINK REPRESENTATIVE DECKER SAID THIS, TOO, THUD BE NON-PARTISAN.

WE'RE THE ONLY MODERN DEMOCRACY IN WHICH OUR CHIEF ELECTION OFFICIALS ELECTED IN PARTISAN ELECTIONS.

GIVE CREDIT TO SECRETARY ADAMS WHO IS A REPUBLICAN FOR WEARING A NON-PARTISAN HAT IN THE OFFICIAL DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE.

BUT IT'S INSANE THAT HE HAS TO ACTIVELY DO THAT.

WE SHOULD HAVE NON-PARTISAN ELECTION ADMINISTRATORS TO DO THAT SORT OF ACTIVITY.

SO WE DON'T HAVE THESE KIND OF PARTISAN FIGHTS.

SO I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO SEE COMPROMISE IN CONGRESS SO THIS COULD BE MORE OF A BARNETT BILL, BUT IN TERMS OF THE SUBSTANCE AND IN TERMS OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY, I THINK IT'S ALL GOOD.

>> SECRETARY ADAMS, YOUR THOUGHTS IN.

>> WELL, WHAT THE GEORGIA REPUBLICANS ARE BEING ACCUSED OF TRYING TO RIG THE GAME TO FAVOR THEIR SIDE IS WHAT NANCY PELOSI IS DOING ON A NATIONAL LEVEL AT STEROIDS, NOT JUST HER BUT NATIONAL DEMOCRATS.

THEY WANT TO PASS A DEMOCRAT-ONLY ELECTION CODE FOR ALL 50 STATES.

THEY WANT TO GET RID OF THE FILLY BUSTERS.

AND THEY WANT TO PACK THE SUPREME COURT.

WHAT A HORRIBLE LOOK.

IF YOU WANT TO MAKE PEOPLE THINK THE ELECTIONS ARE RIGGED, THIS IS A GREAT WAY TO DO IT.

>> JAMES YOUNG, I WANT TO COME TO YOU BECAUSE THOSE WHO PERHAPS ARE IN ELECTED OFFICE, THINK THEY KNOW HOW TO RUN ELECTIONS, DO YOU THINK CONGRESS IS MISSING THE MARK ON HR1?

AND WHAT WOULD YOU ADVISE THEM TO NOT DO?

>> WELL, WHAT SECRETARY ADAMS SAID I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH IN THIS CASE.

I DEFINITELY BELIEVE HR 1 IS A ONE SIZE FITS ALL APPROACH.

IF YOU ARE NOT OF THAT BELIEF, THEN YOU MIGHT THINK HR 1 IS A GREAT THING.

FROM THE ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROACH, I CERTAINLY DON'T SPEAK FOR ALL OF THEM BUT I DO BELIEVE IT ROLL OF THE ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR IS TO RUN THEIR OFFICE FAIR IN A NON-PARTISAN FASHION.

I THINK IF EVERY -- IF WE ALL LOOKED AT THE ELECTIONS PROCESS THROUGH THE LENS OF A POLL WORKERS AND NOT A POLITICS, WE WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON THE PROCESS.

I THINK HR 1 FORCES A LOT OF THINGS ON KENTUCKY IF IT WERE TO PASS SUCH AS AUTOMATED VOTER REGISTRATION WHICH WE HEARD SOMEONE MENTION EARLIER.

IT FORCES SAME-DAY REGISTRATION ON KENTUCKY.

A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH WHAT OUR OWN GENERAL ASSEMBLY JUST PASSED A FEW WEEKS AGO.

AND IT CREATES A LOT OF INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONS THAT WOULD OVERSEE THE ELECTIONS PROCESS, AND IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY TURN SECRETARY ADAMS INTO A DC BABYSITTER RATHER THAN THE ADMINISTRATOR OVER ELECTIONS THAT THE KENTUCKY VOTERS ELECTED HIM TO DO.

>> I WANT TO ASK YOU, MR. YOUNG, ABOUT YOUR CURRENT JOB, WHICH IS HELPING IMPROVE VOTING ACCESS FOR THOSE WITH DISABILITIES.

WHAT DO YOU SEE?

DO YOU THINK HOUSE BILL 574 ACCOMPLISHES THAT OR IS THERE NOTHING IN CONGRESS OR THAT YOU SEE IN ANY OTHER STATE THAT YOU THINK REALLY DOES ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR POPULATION WHEN IT COMES TO ACCESSING THAL ACCESSING THE BALLOT.

>> >> WELL, THERE ARE GREAT THINGS IN BOTH BILLS.

YOU MIGHT NOT HEAR SOMEONE WHO IS A REGISTERED REPUBLICAN ADMIT THAT ABOUT HR 1.

ANY TYPE OF EXPANDED ACCESS TO THE POLL IS A POSITIVE THING.

EXPAND EARLY VOTING A POSITIVE THING.

I'VE HEARD FROM BOTH SIDES THREE DAYS MIGHT NOT BE ENOUGH.

THERE IS EXPANDED FUNDING IN HR 1 ORE ELECTION OFFICER RECRUITMENT WHICH IS POLL WORKER RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING.

THERE'S ADDITIONAL FUNDING IN HR 1 FOR VOTERS WITH DISABILITIES.

IT LETTERS ALSOY EXTENDS WHAT COUNTIES CAN SPEND.

THERE ARE POSITIVES BOTH IN THE HOUSE BILL HERE LOCALLY AND HR 1 IN CONGRESS, AND CERTAINLY WE SHOULD ALWAYS THINK ABOUT HOW WE CAN MAKE ELECTIONS ACCESSIBLE FOR EVERYONE AND MORE INCLUSIVE AND UNIVERSAL.

>> MR. SHAPIRO, THIS MAY BE SOMETHING THAT JUST WHAT MR. YOUNG SAID, YOU MAY AGREE WITH WHAT HE SAID.

TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT HR 1.

>> YEAH, YOU KNOW, I THINK SOME OF THE CRITICISM WE'RE HEARING ABOUT HR 1 RIGHT NOW IS MISPLACED AND IS AVOIDING A DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS AND OF THE SUBSTANCE OF HR 1 IS DOING, WHICH IS MAKING IT EASIER TO VOTE.

AND WE'VE HEARD FROM REPRESENTATIVE DECKER, FROM FROM SECRETARY OF STATE A DAMNS, FROM PROFESSOR DOUGLAS AND ALL AROUND THAT IT'S NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE, AND THAT'S WHAT HR 1 IS DOING.

IT'S SETTING A BASELINE THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE BECAUSE THE STATES AREN'T NECESSARILY DOING IT.

AND AS WE'VE HEARD HERE, KENTUCKY NEEDS THAT EXTRA PUSH, AND THAT'S WHAT HR 1 WOULD DO, MAKE IT SO ACROSS THE COUNTRY EVERYBODY HAS IT, EASY TO VOTE, AND THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD WANT AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT FROM OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO BE DOING.

AND THE FACT THAT IT'S NOW PERHAPS BEING SEEN THROUGH A PARTISAN LENS DOESN'T MEAN OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING THAT IT'S ACTUALLY DOING GOOD IN A NON-PARTISAN WAY.

>> REPRESENTATIVE WHEATLEY, I'LL COMMENT FRANKFORT STUDIO AND GET THE EVERYONE OPINIONS HAVE OUR LAWMAKERS THERE.

THE REPRESENTATIVE WHEATLEY, YOU WEIGH IN FIRST.

>> I LIKE WHAT I SEE IN HR 1, AND TO REPRESENTATIVE DECKER AND SECRETARY ADAMS' POINT ABOUT IT WILL BEING NON-PARTISAN, IF YOU GET FEDERAL PINIELLA GUIDANCE, FEDERAL LAWS AND RULES THAT SAY ALL 50 STATES MUST DO AT LEAST THIS, ELECTIONS WILL STILL BE HELD LOCAL, WE'LL STILL HAVE LOCAL POLL WORKERS, WE'LL STILL COUNT THE VOTES THERE, BUT HAVING SAME-DAY REGISTRATION, HAVING EARLY VOTE -- MORE EARLY VOTING DAYS, HAVING A NON-PARTISAN REDISTRICTING COMMISSION TO DRAW THE BOUNDARIES OF OUR LINES TO REALLY END GERRYMANDERING, ALL THESE ARE VERY POSITIVE THINGS THAT'LL HELP OUR ELECTIONS AND BRING CONFIDENCE WHEN EVERYBODY'S FOLLOWING THE SAME RULES THROUGHOUT THE STATE.

WOULDN'T GO THIS STATE'S DOING THIS AND THIS STATE'S DOING THAT AND WEARS WORSE AND THEY'RE BETTER.

NO, IT WILL BE A VERY COMMON SET OF RULES THAT I THINK WOULD BE EFFECTIVE FOR BETTER ACCESS TO THE POLLS, AND THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.

>> REPRESENTATIVE DECKER, DID YOU HAVE A WORD YOU WANTED TO ADD?

IF NOT I'LL TO GO PROFESSOR DOUGLAS TO ASK HIS IDEAS ON EXPANDENDS VOTER ACCESS.

>> JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS.

I DO WANT TO WORK ON, HAVE WORKED ON TAKING DOWN ROADBLOCKS TO VOTING.

THE CONCEPT OF MAKING IT EASY TO VEET, I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING MISSING THERE ABOUT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF VOTING TOO.

I WISH PEOPLE WOULD THINK OF IT AS A CIVIC DUTY.

WE NOW HAVE FOUR DAYS TO VOTE WITHOUT ANY EXCUSE OF NOT BEING THERE ON THE DAY.

I WISH PEOPLE WOULD PAY ATTENTION.

I THINK THERE'S SOME DEGREE OF DANGER OF EXTENDING EARLY VOTING TOO LONG.

I THINK SOME OF THE THE ELECTIONS RECENTLY MAY HAVE TURNED OUT DIFFERENTLY IF THEY HAD GONE ALL THE WAY TO THE END BEFORE YOU COULD VOTE.

THINGS HAPPEN IN ELECTIONS THAT MATTER TOWARD THE END.

SO I LOOK AT THE DATA.

I THINK MOST PEOPLE VOTED TOWARD THE END OF OUR ELECTION.

WE HAD ALL OF THE EARLY VOTING, THE VERY EARLY VOTING BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC, BECAUSE OF THE ELDERLY POPULATION OR OLDER POPULATION THAT WORKED IN THE POLLS.

I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO EXTEND PANDEMIC RULES FOREVER, AND I JUST WISH PEOPLE WOULD THINK ABOUT VOTING AS A CIVIC DUTY AND PLAN FOR IT AND -- AND NOT EXTEND VOTING PAST WHERE IT'S NEEDED, FOR ONE THING, JUST TO SAY WE'VE DONE IT.

I DON'T THINK THAT IT NECESSARILY ADDS.

>> AND TO THE POINT THAT SHE'S MAKING, PROFESSOR DOUGLAS, THAT REPRESENTATIVE DECKER IS MAKING ABOUT IT BEING ONE THING THAT AMERICA DOES ON THE SAME DAY, BUT WE KNOW THAT WORKPLACES DON'T ALWAYS ACCOMMODATE THAT, AND FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHOSE SCHEDULES WOULD NOT BE MORE FLUID TO THAT, SHOULD IT BE A NATIONAL HOLIDAY, ELECTION DAY?

AND YOUR IDEA THAT YOU'VE WRITTEN ABOUT IS CONSIDERING EXPANDING THE VOTING AGE, LOWERING IT TO AGE 16.

SO START WITH THE OTHER FIRSTS AND THEN GET TO THE AGE LOWERING.

>> SURE.

I AGREE THAT VOTING IS A CIVIC DUTY, BUT IT'S ALSO A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

IT IS THE THING THAT EQUALIZES ALL OF US.

IF DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENT SAYS THAT OUR DEMOCRACY IS LEGITIMATE BASED ON THE CONN CONSENT OF GOVERNED.

YOU HAD SHOULDN'T THAT INCLUDE ALL OF US?

AND WHY SHOULD WE HAVE ROADBLOCKS TO ELECTORAL PARTICIPATION?

I WANT EVERYONE TO VOTE.

I DON'T CARE WHO WINS IF WE HAVE AS REPRESENTATIVE AN ELECTION AS POSSIBLE.

SO THERE'S A BALANCE.

YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT ACCESS.

YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT INTEGRITY.

YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT COST.

BUT A LOT OF THESE THINGS MAKE NO SENSE NOT TO EXPAND WHEN ALL IT'S GOING TO DO IS MAKE IT EASIER FOR SOME PEOPLE.

MOST PEOPLE, MAYBE THEY ONLY NEED THE THREE DAYS OF EARLY VOTING, BUT SOME PEOPLE WHO WORK TWO JOBS OR WHO HAVE OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES, CAN'T NECESSARILY SHOW UP, AND THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT EXPANDED ABSENTEE BALLOTING AND WHATNOT.

LET'S BREAK DOWN THE BARRIERS.

WHAT ARE WE AFRAID OF THE VOTERS FOR TO SAY THAT THERE'S SOME SORT OF HOOPS YOU HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH?

I KNOW WE'RE ALMOST RUNNING OUT OF TIME BUT ON LOWERING THE VOTING AGE, SOME CITIES HAVE DONE THIS FOR LOCAL OR SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS, AND THE RESULTS HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY POSITIVE.

GREATER VOTER ENGAGEMENT, BETTER VOTER EDUCATION WHICH I THINK HAS TO GO HAND IN HAND, AND ALL WE SEE IS PEOPLE TURNING INTO LIFELONG VOTERS.

>> SO WHAT DOES THE STATE'S CHIEF VOTING ELECTION, WHAT DOES HE FEEL ABOUT IT?

>> LET ME TAKE OUR BREATH AND IMPLEMENT THIS HUGE LAW WE JUST PASSED.

>> YOUY YO WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT THE NEXT THING.

>> A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK WE WERE DIDN'T GO FAR ENOUGH, SYMPTOM THINK NOT FAR ENOUGH.

LET'S IMPLEMENT THIS LAW.

I DON'T WANT TO WAIT 130 YEARS TO LOOK AT A AGAIN BUT LET'S SEE HOW WE LIKE IT.

>> SO GO THROUGH 2022, SEE HOW IT,, AND MAYBE THE NEXT SESSION, 2023, DO YOU THINK THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF BEING FURTHER ENHANCEMENTS EITHER WAY?

>> I THINK THERE WILL I.

BE A BILL IN 2020, LITTLE THINGS THAT FOLKS HAVE BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION, MAYBE MOVING A DEADLINE HERE OR THERE.

I DON'T SEE A BIG CHANGE IN THIS BILL.

E WE JUST HAD PHOTO I.D.

THAT'S PROBABLY ABOUT IT FOR MY FIRST TERM.

>> WE THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING WITH US, WHETHER YOU ARE IN OUR LOUISVILLE STUDIO, OUR FRANKFORT STUDIO OR JOINING ME HERE IN OUR LEXINGTON STUDIO MUCH GRATITUDE TO ALL OF YOU.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US AT HOME TONIGHT.

YOU CAN TUNE IN ON FRIDAY NIGHT, OF COURSE, BILL BRYANT AND A MANLY OF REPORTERS WILL BE HERE TO DISCUSS THE WEEK'S NEWS ON COMMENT.

ON KENTUCKY THIS FRIDAY AT 8:00 EASTERN, 7:00 CENTRAL RIGHT HERE ON KET.

NEXT WEEK ON "KENTUCKY TONIGHT" WE'LL TALK ABOUT MASS SHOOTINGS AND YOU GUN LAWS, SO WE HOPE YOU'LL TUNE IN WITH US NEXT MONDAY AT ON KET.

HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.