Jon Stewart, Stacey Abrams & Matt Masterson on Election Integrity & Security as 2024 Election Looms

JON STEWART: We're doing God's work. I'm sorry. I promised myself I wouldn't tear up. [MUSIC PLAYING]. Hey, everybody. Jon Stewart here. Welcome to The Weekly Show podcast, which is--. I do want to clarify for people who are like, oh, you host The Daily Show once a week. and then you host the podcast once a week, so. aren't they both weekly shows? And I just want to say to the people out there, go, shut up. You don't know me. You don't know what I've been through.

But yes, that is probably the case. We have a fabulous program for you today on election integrity. and debunking some of the things, but first, I want to do, obviously-- and I don't know exactly when. this coming out, but we are--. Florida right now is staring down. just an absolute catastrophe. And I just wanted to make sure--. and I know everybody understands the Red Cross. and all the different places that they can send money to. for Helene and for Milton and for whatever.

else is coming that way. These areas are truly--. they're going through it. And if there's any way for you to do it--. but I wanted to just point out just a couple of other avenues. by which you may consider donating, which may be something that can help. There's World Central Kitchen, which is José Andrés, who. goes into these areas and just starts feeding people, the people that are suffering down there, the people that are there to help. And he just does such a unbelievably beautiful job.

and is an unbelievably beautiful. person, World Central Kitchen. There's also Team Rubicon, which is. a veterans-led organization. They'll deploy directly into these worst-hit areas. where it's really difficult to get things through, where areas have to be cleared and opened. These are folks that have been in war zones that have served, and they go down into these disaster stricken areas. and really help stabilize the area. and start to help bring it back.

That's Team Rubicon. Obviously, all the states have disaster relief funds. So you can always go to a Florida. disaster relief fund or North Carolina disaster relief fund. And then obviously, CARE, which is another organization. that does that. So I just want to--. I know everybody's on top of it and figuring out ways to help. and doing all those different things, but those are just for that in case you were looking for a way. to get in there. And the show today, quite frankly-- and we'll. talk to Lauren and Britney a little bit later,

but I am excited because I'm so fucking sick of turning. on the news and it's all amplification. of conspiracy theories about elections and will you certify? And they'll say, well, it depends on-- but they never. get into the actual logistics and mechanics of elections that. do safeguard them, that there are incredibly talented, diligent, hard working, faceless, anonymous individuals.

working tirelessly to make sure that these elections are. administered fairly and justly and legally. And I'm so fucking sick of it. And we have on today two individuals that can really. walk through some of the ways that we actually safeguard. our elections and the things that we need to make it even. better and even more secure. So we're going to get to those guys.

now because I'm just very hopeful that they will help. uplift this conversation and not continue. to put it in the Sewer Eddie. That is the 24-hour news system these days. All right. So let's get to them. [THEME MUSIC]. All right. So right now, we are absolutely thrilled. Stacey Abrams, voting rights activist, host. of Assembly Required. Matt Masterson, senior director Microsoft. Democracy Forward program.

Stacey and Matt, thank you so much for being here. MATT MASTERSON: Thank you so much for having us. STACEY ABRAMS: Thanks for having us. JON STEWART: So I don't know if you. have checked your calendar this Roctober, but we are four weeks--. what day is it? Less than four weeks. Is that possible? STACEY ABRAMS: Yes. MATT MASTERSON: Yes. It feels very possible. JON STEWART: From this election-- the two of you. spend your lives working on election integrity, working on making sure that we have.

these free and fair elections that we have, by the way, heard so much about. I've heard wonderful things about these free and. fair elections. So today, I thought we would run through a list. There are concerns about elections, some of them. legitimate, some of them weaponized by partisans. I wanted to get a sense from the two of you. with your experience, both, Stacey, obviously, running in elections and now fighting to get access.

to these free and fair elections and Matt, with always working on the administration of elections. and how to keep things safe. What are the areas that you think. are of, let's start with legitimate concern. for people, the concerns that people. might express for elections? And Stacey, I'll start with you. What in your mind is a legitimate concern about either. election access or integrity? STACEY ABRAMS: The way I frame it is voter suppression, which.

is, when the state or an actor of the state. tries to block your ability to participate. in free and fair elections, that's voter suppression. There are three ways to measure it. Can you register and stay on the rolls? Can you cast your ballot? And does that ballot get counted? And over the last 200-plus years, we have found remarkable ways to interfere with voters. doing those three things. JON STEWART: Oh, 200 years? STACEY ABRAMS: Oh, 200-plus. JON STEWART: That might encompass the whole damn thing, the whole enchilada here.

STACEY ABRAMS: It's been pretty much from inception. I mean, you got to remember, when we first. started this process, only white men who. owned land could cast ballots. JON STEWART: Yes. STACEY ABRAMS: And as a nation, we've. done a good job of expanding the ambit, letting more people in, but then we. get really concerned because they actually use the process, and then we try to take it back. And so my focus is on, how do we make certain that rules. aren't put in place that interfere. with your ability to register? So, for example, Wisconsin is going through a conversation. about who gets--. it's called voter maintenance of the rolls, which Matt.

can tell you is necessary. You need to maintain accurate rolls. The question is, what's the filter that you use to take. someone off of the rolls? When you deny someone the right to vote, how narrow, how tight is that filter? Then there's, how do you cast a ballot? We talk about voter ID laws, which people think, why wouldn't you have an ID? No one disputes you should have ID. The question is, how hard is it to get that ID? For example, if you are a student in the state of Texas, you can use your gun license, but you. cannot use your student ID.

And there are states that have removed the right--. Idaho recently removed the right. to use state-issued student IDs to vote, which. has a disproportionate effect on younger voters, who may. vote in ways you don't like. Then you get to the, does your ballot get counted? And that's where Georgia shines. So we currently have a state election board. that is taking great pains to make. it difficult for those ballots to get counted by changing. the rules, by saying that votes can be decertified.

by one member, one election official in a county, requiring a hand count of millions. of ballots that will be cast. And it may just take too long. It's like sometimes counting grains of sand. You may not get it done in time. And so what's most important is for people. to remember we've got 50 different democracies operating. at any one time in this country. There is no single set of rules. We use the same language, but we're not. talking about the same thing. JON STEWART: These are fiefdoms, you're saying, Stacey. That each one has its own constitution. and its own administration.

STACEY ABRAMS: Basically. I mean, we don't have a constitutional right to vote. What we have is a state-granted authority. over the administration of elections. that's in the constitution. And you have constitutional changes that allowed more. and more people to participate, but ultimately, it's up to 3,000 counties, 50 states plus territories, and individuals to actually make democracy work. And that's why it gets both confused and contentious. And the last thing I'll say is this,

we've got to remember that the act. of casting about the process is nonpartisan. You may be partisan in who you pick, but the process should be neutral as. to who is casting the ballot. And our concerns, the concerns, I think, Matt and I share about, how do we make it more difficult. or more importantly, how do we make it easier. for eligible voters to cast those ballots. without having to cross those three hurdles that I mentioned? JON STEWART: That's a wonderful encapsulation, I think, Stacey. Thank you so much. And Matt, well, I want to talk to you.

So let's try and break that down a little bit, kind of put it into digestible--. what you seem to have is this incredibly complex, nonstandardized process that allows, I guess, more local control of elections but also allows--. I think Stacey brought up something really. interesting there, which is, the elections. should be nonpartisan. Obviously, partisans, they're generally. run by political parties, a Democratic Party, a Republican Party, or boards that have. Democrats and Republicans.

The administration of elections, you imagine, to be partisan but not necessarily ideological. In other words, it's not ideologues. In these last few elections, it's. shown that it exposed some vulnerabilities. in the administration of elections. That if you could put ideologues. into what are generally administrative positions, you can twist these levers. Is that the experience that you're seeing, Matt, that some of these more administrative positions.

are now being taken over by real ideologue, zealots? MATT MASTERSON: No, that's not the experience. I'm actually seeing. I think that's a risk. I think that's a conversation that we need to continue. to have and guard against. I think Stacy has flagged some very legitimate concerns there, but my experience with state and local election officials--. and just to make it more complicated for all of us--. there's about 8,800, 8,800 local election jurisdictions.

across the United States. To give you an idea, in Wisconsin, there's more than 1,800 local election offices. across the state of Wisconsin. They're incredibly decentralized in Wisconsin. Here in Ohio, there's 88. It's run by the county. My experience with state and local election officials. is that they may run as partisans, they may even have ideas about what they believe. should be done as partisans, but when they get into office. and when they take the position, they quickly realize that their best, both administrative choice and political choice,

is to run really good elections and to be transparent. and to invite in the public and welcome. the scrutiny that goes on. And there's examples from Georgia. with Secretary Raffensperger. He's elected as a Republican, but I. think we can all recognize that what he did in 2020, in response to attempts to get him to sway the election, he rejected them. He knew his role. He knew that his job was not to serve as a partisan official, but in fact, to administer the election according to the state. laws, the constitution.

Otherwise, Stephen Richer in Maricopa County, Arizona, a Republican, ran the election in Maricopa County. and stood up and fought against attempts to, again, influence. the election. JON STEWART: By the way, at great personal cost. I don't know if you saw there was a 60 Minutes. piece of Stephen Richer where you're like, oh my God, this guy's had death threats. for running an election. MATT MASTERSON: And that that's a theme that not only sadly. for Stephen but for Secretary Raffensperger and election. officials across the country and Democrat. and Republican counties, large, small, rural, urban.

They are being targeted. And I hope we can discuss a little bit. about what the impact of that is, which is critical. But my experience with the election officials. themselves is one in which they view their job as to administer. elections per the laws, to run them in. a transparent, bipartisan way. And I'll flag, there's this decentralized nature, allows election officials to embrace. what best serves their voters. So here in Ohio, we have a long history, though, not.

any more of close elections. And so we have what we affectionately. refer to as our detente structure, where literally. a Democrat and a Republican watch each other. do everything at the local board of elections. Whether it's registration, whether it's ballot processing, some counties will have a DNR go. run the flag up the flagpole in the morning. and take it down in the evening. And that's part of our culture because of the close elections. In other states, they handle that differently, but in every state, there's bipartisan participation.

in the process, observers, poll workers, whatever the case may be. And there's transparency to the process across all 50 states. It may vary what that looks like in those 50 states, but there's an ability for the public to see. and understand the process. Just this week, Maricopa County did pre-election testing. of the voting systems. It's not the most interesting thing to go watch, but the public is invited and welcome to go watch the testing. of the voting systems. JON STEWART: Oh, they should be doing that. at the Sphere in Las Vegas. They should be promoting that. I want to ask Stacey, though--.

so Matt, you brought up an interesting point, which is there's a concern that it's. partisan but not ideological. Stacey, the thing that I worry about, and it's something Matt. brought up, he talked about 2020. and how the guardrails on the electoral process kind of held, but it seems pretty clear, especially in places. like Arizona or other places that were swing states, that people who believe that the 2020 election was rigged. against any possible evidence that has been seen.

to the contrary about nothing that has held up in court. about no real statistical or mathematical. or any kind of evidence to the contrary, believing it to be rigged, have now. inserted themselves into the administration. of these elections. That there are election deniers that are now. embedded in that very system that I. think Matt is talking about. I think he talked about, in 2020, you really found that it held, but haven't inroads.

been made into the administration. of these elections from these ideologues. who don't believe that these elections were run correctly. STACEY ABRAMS: So I think what Matt's saying is absolutely. important, which is that the vast majority of election. officials, regardless of partisanship, want the process to hold. The challenge and what you're identifying or where I spend. a lot of my time is that not everyone. is in the vast majority. And so you do have ideologues. For example, you have ideologues in Georgia.

who have been touted for their willingness to insert. chaos into the system. And the problem is-- and this is. why I want to acknowledge that we have people who. can take good actions but aren't. always doing the right things. So in the state of Georgia, for example, I applaud Governor Kemp and Secretary Raffensperger for--. JON STEWART: I'm sorry. My headphones went out. I just heard, I applaud Governor Kemp. And I just want to make sure that that's going in.

I don't get this in stereo. STACEY ABRAMS: I appreciate the fact. that they refused to break the law in 2020, but what they then did, what both of them supported. in 2021 and in 2023 were new laws that actually gave more. power to those ideologues to insert. themselves into the system. Because it's not just about those who deny the elections. And that's why I talk about all three phases. If you can't enter the process, having your vote denied.

is irrelevant if you never got a chance. to cast it in the first place. And so we've become so fixated on the spectacle of election. deniers, we're ignoring the fact that in 28 states, more than 100 laws passed between the 2020. election and today to make it harder for people to vote. JON STEWART: Harder to vote in what way, Stacey? STACEY ABRAMS: So if you're a disabled voter in Georgia, it is now harder to use the absentee ballot system, not because anything was done wrong, not because there was fraud, but because too.

many people used it. And so across the country, we are seeing constraints placed. on who can access the ballot. And that is a problem, because, yes, we are all focused. on the election denial process, but we also. need to focus on the partisans who are indeed engaged. in a behavior that's making it harder for average people. to vote. In the state of North Carolina, a strict ID law that's. making it harder for older people who do not have access, don't have the resources or the capacity to get IDs,

will now find it harder to vote than they have in 20 years. JON STEWART: Stacey, let me talk to you about that, especially brought up North Carolina. We did a story on The Daily Show--. I don't know-- maybe 15 years ago in North Carolina. How much of this is--. they're trying to make the administration. of these elections easier or more accessible. How much of it is weaponizing the process of elections. against certain groups? And the reason why I bring it up. is, this guy in North Carolina--. and I can't remember what exactly was the thing that it.

was proposed, but it was the North. Carolina Republican Party. And they were very clearly trying. to make it harder for college students and people of color. because they felt that those people. voted too often as Democrats. STACEY ABRAMS: Yes. JON STEWART: And he, in his bountiful wisdom, thought it was a smart idea to state. that explicitly on air with us, was immediately fired. But he kind of gave away the game. How much of these changes that are made.

are a good faith effort at looking at what went wrong, where the vulnerabilities are, what are ways that we can fix. it, and how much of it is just another aspect. of electioneering and weaponizing these changes. to make sure that certain groups that they think. are too reliable for one voting bloc are more disenfranchised? STACEY ABRAMS: So I'm a member of the Democratic party, in case anybody missed it. JON STEWART: What? You just applauded Governor Kemp, Stacey Abrams. STACEY ABRAMS: Hold on. I'm going to do something else.

From 1865 to basically 1867 to 1965, the party of which I am a part, weaponized electioneering--. JON STEWART: Yes. STACEY ABRAMS: --in order to block people who looked. like me from participating. Both parties have engaged in this behavior. And that's the crux of voter suppression. When you weaponize democracy to stop yourself. from losing power, no matter who you target, you hit everybody. And that's the problem. And that's where Matt and the work that he does comes in.

Because you've got partisans who are making. rules because they don't like losing close elections. They don't like not being able to control who makes decisions. And so in New Hampshire, they changed the laws explicitly. to stop college students, who they. thought were too liberal, from participating in elections. I've never thought of Dartmouth as a hotbed of liberalism, but-- JON STEWART: No. No, it's not. STACEY ABRAMS: They targeted Dartmouth. We know that, in Georgia, in Florida, in Ohio, we. have seen changes made to the process.

that have a disproportionate effect on certain communities. And the way we should think about this, giving the greatest. benefit of the doubt that you didn't know. what you were doing, when you know better, you should do better. And we know that there are certain rules that. are put in place that explicitly. and exclusively harm communities of color, young people, and poor people. And when we know that to be true, we should take every action possible to expand. the aperture of voting so that eligible people. can participate.

Because otherwise, what we are doing. is weaponizing elections to hold power. and not to hear from people. And that is wrong. JON STEWART: Matt, Stacey brought up, that's. the work that you're doing. How do you manifest your work to open. that aperture for Stacey? And let's be clear, Matt, you've. worked mostly for Republicans. You were appointed by Obama, but you're a Republican. So this is-- we are having, I think, in this moment--. in this moment right now, we are having. a kumbaya bipartisan discussion about opening the aperture.

of voting and making it less vulnerable to this kind of, we're doing God's work. I'm sorry. I promised myself I wouldn't tear up. Matt, what are the things that you're. doing that Stacey is describing are necessary to be done? MATT MASTERSON: Appreciate it. I was appointed by President Obama. but recommended by John Boehner, which is a real throwback to a bygone era, with Speaker Boehner. This conversation is important in part.

because state, local election officials. are going to implement the laws that are passed. And there's also a role, which I'm sure we'll talk about, for courts to be involved, as suits undoubtedly. are and will continue to be brought. against some of these laws. And the election officials wait and implement and find out. But a few items that I think are important on the election. administration front, taking a step back, all of the things that Stacey just described. are critical issues and particularly critical to those. voters impacted. And so those battles need to be had and conversations.

But just to put it in perspective, since 2000-- so. I started in elections right after Bush v Gore, to those that remember Bush v Gore, and there was lots of conversations. about election administration, voting, technology, and otherwise. Since that time, we now are at a point where 97% of voters. have access to some form of early voting across the states. Notably, states like Mississippi, Alabama, New Hampshire do not. And that's a conversation we should be having. No excuse, absentee, or by mail voting. is available in 36 of the states.

And so there's been continued expansion. And this is not just good for voters. I think it is good for voters. And we've seen Republicans embrace it. For instance, Secretary of State Michael Adams in Kentucky. has supported expanded early voting, not just because it. serves voters well, but it also improves the integrity. of the elections. And I think sometimes this gets missed in the conversation. with some of these reforms. Early voting, absentee by mail voting, having more voters vote before election day, one, is a service. to the voters, two, have more voters. vote before election day, which helps.

to manage things like lines. Election officials can identify and deploy resources. where they know voters have voted versus haven't. voted to better serve voters. And we see that. We see improvements since the presidential commission. on election administration that President Obama created, that election officials have implemented. a number of practices to try to use that data. to improve services to voters. And then perhaps, most importantly, what it does. is serves as an early warning sign. if there's something wrong with registration lists, voting. systems, things like that. Election officials then begin to get little hints of,

oh, we may have a problem here and begin to be able to action. that so that, as we build towards election day, they've ironed out some of the challenges, responded to some of the issues that may be experienced, a smoother election day, and then post. election count can take place. And so the reason I think we continue to see online voter. registration, early voting, no excuse absentee voting expanded. in many of these places is because they not only serve. as a proper service to voters, but they improve the security. and integrity of the election.

And Republican and Democrat election officials. recognize that. JON STEWART: It's a great point that you're bringing up now. So let's dig into that a little bit, because every single thing that you mentioned. is something that, from what I've seen, Donald Trump is against and has spoken out very. clearly and the larger apparatus of the top levels. of the Republican Party. When you talk about mail-in voting, when you talk about early voting, you're talking about these are processes. that improve our ability to run these elections. So why in God's name, other than they.

think that it's their people that aren't utilizing it, would they be against it? And so the question is, what are the safeguards? When someone says mail-in voting is a recipe for fraud, early voting is a way for illegals to register-- like, let's go through some of those complaints. and figure out a way to explain what. are the safeguards that make these things. not a threat to our election. So let's just start with mail-in voting.

They're against mail-in voting because they think it's a more. open invitation to fraud. So what is a safeguard? How do these local areas safeguard mail-in voting? MATT MASTERSON: So first, I just note, that conversation. continues to evolve. The Republican chair of Arizona yesterday. encouraged Republican voters in Arizona. to get their votes in early. JON STEWART: I'm sure. Yesterday. But I don't know if you know this. The guy at the top of the ticket.

has had a seemingly a problem with it, other than the fact that he himself does it. But very clearly, they thought mail-in voting is. what allowed the Chinese to put bamboo. in the voting things and--. who the hell knows what they think. But how does a mail-in ballot, how is that safeguarded? MATT MASTERSON: With any elections process--. and I'll talk specifically about mail-in voting--. there's layers of safeguards. So there's what we would call defense in depth. to prevent fraudulent activity, to be able to verify the voter.

So it starts with registration, ensuring that registration. information is up to date, is correct so that when you're. mailing the ballot out, you're mailing. it to the proper person. They're receiving their ballot, which is good for access--. JON STEWART: And lying on your registration is a felony. MATT MASTERSON: It's a felony. You have to attest to the facts in your registration, including providing identification information, name, first name, last name, date. of birth, last four Social Security number. or driver's license number. And I will note that the majority of people that. register to vote put their driver's license number.

on there, which is important because there. are checks that you can run through the BMV. Even if they don't, election officials. have the ability to work with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. to get that information to validate. JON STEWART: You can't register to vote. unless you have a Social Security. number or a driver's license. MATT MASTERSON: Or a state ID number. It depends--. JON STEWART: Or state, but something. recognized as-- so we already have. in a large extent, voter ID. You may not present it, but we have. MATT MASTERSON: Yeah. And in fact--. JON STEWART: Oh, for God's sakes. MATT MASTERSON: --the Help America Vote Act of 2002. coming out of Bush v Gore requires.

all first-time registrants to provide ID in order. to register to vote. That's in federal law after the Bush v Gore. JON STEWART: Stacey, is that something that people--. I don't understand that. STACEY ABRAMS: So that goes back to my point of, we use the same language, we're talking about different things. When people oppose voter ID, they are not. opposing identifying yourself. HAVA, the Help America Vote Act, says you have to prove who you are. JON STEWART: To register. STACEY ABRAMS: The issue is, it's how hard is it to do so. And what they've done is they've eliminated the ways.

people can prove who they are. If you are indigent, you may not have a license because you. don't have a place to live. That does not deny your citizenship and your right. to participate in elections. If you are a student who doesn't drive, like most people who apparently live in New York, then you might--. JON STEWART: That's hurtful, Stacey, but point well taken. Point well taken. STACEY ABRAMS: So the issue is-- and this goes. to your weaponization point--. election officials have to deal with the laws they're given. Politicians are picking laws that make it harder.

for people to participate. And we've seen this constraint since the 2020 election. And it's not just because of who lost. It was because of who voted. We had the highest participation level. in the century in 2020 because people got to vote by mail, because they had time to actually read the ballot. and figure out who in the world they were voting for. More people did it. And because more people did it, there. are now more rules to stop them from doing it again. That's the issue.

But going back to voter ID, voter identification, yes, you have to identify yourself. It's how hard is it. And I'll give you one last quick example. In South Dakota, the Standing Rock Sioux, that tribe participated aggressively in elections. They then changed the law to say that they had to have. a street address, a residential address on their licenses. in order to vote. The problem is the county was responsible for allocating. the addresses and refused to do so. And so you had an entire population.

that was denied the right to vote. because they could not meet the new voter ID law standards. And the Supreme Court said, well, it's a de minimis population. You don't outnumber everyone else. So if it disproportionately affects you, oh well. So you had a weaponized voter ID law. that targeted specifically a Native American population. because they were the tipping point in a Senate election. in 2016. JON STEWART: And Matt, getting back to what you were talking. about-- and thank you, Stacey. That's fabulous context. So when you think about that, the reason.

those laws were passed was there is a population that. has been rabble roused to believe that mail-in voting. or opening it up or those types of things. that allow people to prove who they are were fraudulent. And so they pass all these laws that actually end up. disenfranchising real voters as opposed to protecting us from. fraud that is not significant. So you talked about the idea of voter ID,

and that's been a big thing of you got to have voter ID. I didn't realize that you obviously have. to do that when you register. So once that's done, and with a mail-in ballot, where you're not going to be there so you can't present. an ID, what are the safeguards of how. they go back and cross-check and can that be done? MATT MASTERSON: Yeah, it absolutely. can and is done, which is the most important part. And so when voters return mail-in ballots-- and let's. keep in mind, again, that the transparent and bipartisan. nature, each one of these steps I'm going to describe. involves transparency to the public. The public can observe things like signature verification.

in many places, can observe the processing of mail ballots--. JON STEWART: But they can also protest it, can they not? They can stand there if they are a partisan and say, I challenge that guy. I challenge that. MATT MASTERSON: Yeah. Those rules depend state by state, but there's very clear sort of rules around that. And that's got to be managed by. And typically, the way that's done for what it's worth. gets to point to, which is that the party's, party. representatives that there are participating in the process. And at times that means that they. may have observers or challengers, depending on state law.

But it's important for people to know. that their team is a part of the process. if they view it that way. The parties involved and that there's transparency behind it. That's critically important. And then the professionals that run elections, these aren't just folks that wake up. some Tuesday in November and decide, well, that would be a good time. Let's run some elections, right? JON STEWART: Well, they certainly wouldn't. say that would be good. MATT MASTERSON: Not currently. Not currently. JON STEWART: I think that would not be good. MATT MASTERSON: And they spend all. their time thinking about the minutia of this process. How can it be improved? How can we better serve voters and maintain.

the integrity of the process? So the ballot gets back. They check the identification information on the outside. of the envelope. They say, is this the person that we said? They checked the signature that's provided. on the back of the envelope. And signature checking, while present, for many years in elections has continued to improve, as we've sort of understood how to use signatures. So, for instance, previously, you. only looked at the prior signature that was provided. Now election officials typically. have access to several generations of your signature,

which is really important. As adults age, their signature changes, right? JON STEWART: Right. It's like a passport. You get a new passport. MATT MASTERSON: Exactly. Exactly. And so their ability to check that and escalate and say, ah, I don't think this matches, there's. an escalation process, that often involves. those bipartisan observers. Like they'll sit at tables across from each other. and look and evaluate. JON STEWART: And they can go back and check if they have to. or go to the people. MATT MASTERSON: Yes. Yes. In some states, in some states, there's this opportunity. JON STEWART: Oh, some states, you cannot. MATT MASTERSON: --opportunity to cure.

If there's an issue, if your ballot is rejected, in some states, there's an opportunity to go back. In other states, there isn't. But this all shows this thorough level of the process. that goes through. On top of this, there's the physical security. that's critical to this. So the ballots come back. There's a chain of custody that identifies who had access. to what ballots when, when they move through the process, who. then move them through the process, all the way. through until they're counted so. that you could recreate and say, OK, who had access to this? Was it appropriate for them to have access?

JON STEWART: So when they're redoing, when they say. like, oh, Georgia's going to have a recount. and they're going to redo and these have been challenged, they're walking back through that chain of custody. And they have to prove it. And if you go to court, they would. have to present an evidentiary chain of custody, they would have to be able to present an. evidentiary signature lineage. And that's how they prove it. So when they say, we went back and we found no evidence. of widespread-- we found three ballots that were fraudulent.

or whatever it is, that's what they're doing. MATT MASTERSON: Yes. The canvassing process. So there's the initial count on election night, and then what election officials are doing-- while all. of us are arguing about politics, is going from the initial count to the canvassing process. towards final certification. And that's exactly what final certification is. It says, OK, these are the number of voters that voted. This is how they voted. This is how we checked their identification,

verified them, whether they voted in person or by mail. This matches up. This is what the voting machine count said. JON STEWART: It's why none of these accusations in any way. ended up holding up in court. Stacey, I want to ask you. So very clearly, we have a very robust, very particular, not necessarily standardized process. by which all of these issues of fraud are adjudicated. It doesn't sound to me like we have in any way. that kind of really robust process. when it comes to purging voter rolls.

or when it comes to access to ballots. or when it comes to access to voting places. Is that where we need to step up our game so that access is. given the same consideration that chain of custody and those. kinds of things are given? STACEY ABRAMS: So I know Matt's going. to point out that there are voter maintenance role rules. The issue is--. JON STEWART: Yes. STACEY ABRAMS: --in 2013, when the Supreme Court basically. gutted the Voting Rights Act--. JON STEWART: No, they said it was all done now.

I think they said bigotry was over. STACEY ABRAMS: Yeah. I didn't get that memo, but--. JON STEWART: Oh, it's in there. STACEY ABRAMS: So when they gutted the Voting Rights. Act, what they said was that under Section 5, you had to pre-clear things that were going to make it. harder for people to participate in elections. if you lived in a jurisdiction that had a habit of doing so. So most states in the south and then different jurisdictions. across the country. When that went away, the floodgates opened, so states like Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,

Florida, but also places in Wisconsin, other parts of the country started making it harder. and harder to have access. And there is no blocking because you. do not have the Voting Rights Act in full effect. And so we have seen, since 2013, it has become harder and harder for certain communities. to access the vote, but it's also become harder and harder. to stop it because you don't-- when you go to court, you can't say, well, you can't do it because of the Voting. Rights Act--. JON STEWART: You don't have the power of the law behind you--.

STACEY ABRAMS: You don't have the power. Exactly. JON STEWART: --in that way. It's really interesting. And this is-- man, I wish we had way more time. I want to get into one other aspect. that people talk about a lot, and it's one that I don't quite. understand either, which is these electronic. voting machines. So we talked about mail-in and we talked about access. and those things, but you also have this idea. that, yeah, now there's, you press a button, and it goes into a computer. I am not a tech savvy in any way. I just assume inside a voting machine or just eight really. smart gerbils who are typing very quickly to make.

everything go down there. How secure is that process and what should we be worried about. and how do they safeguard that? MATT MASTERSON: So I started my career testing. and certifying voting systems. So I have a deep knowledge and the improvements that's. been made around security. The first and most important part of this discussion. is that 95% or more of ballots cast in this upcoming election. will have a corresponding auditable paper record. This means that this is a either hand-marked paper ballot.

or record of the vote that the voter could verify. before casting their ballot that. could go back and be checked or audited, not one to one. We have secrecy of the ballot. And we saw this play out in 2020. Georgia went back and hand recounted the ballots. JON STEWART: Even the ones that are cast electronically? MATT MASTERSON: Yes. Yes. Because there's that corresponding auditable. paper record. JON STEWART: What is the other 5%, Matt? Because that's a significant number. MATT MASTERSON: So the other 5%, one is-- the good news is, across the swing. states, all of them use auditable paper records.

The 5% is a mixture of accessibility devices. in a handful of states for voters with disabilities. As you can imagine, hand marking a paper ballot. is not reasonable or accessible for many voters. with disabilities. And so these are, in large part, legacy touchscreen systems that are used. for accessibility purposes with voters with disabilities. in a handful of states. Again, the swing states will have audible paper. JON STEWART: And by the way, you were in charge in 2020. Didn't you work for the guy who was kind of in charge.

of ensuring that the digital or electronic voting systems. were up to snuff and he said it was the most secure election. that we had seen, and Trump, I believe, fired him immediately? MATT MASTERSON: Yeah. So I led the election security work under Chris Krebs. JON STEWART: Right. MATT MASTERSON: And the state, local officials. are the ones that secure the systems, but our job was to help support them. And you've raised a really important-- the reason. that statement could be made-- and it wasn't. Chris Krebs saying that.

It was DHS, CISA with election officials, with election vendors--. is because we knew from working with state and local officials. every single day the steps they were taking. to secure those systems. We knew the chain of custody procedures, the cybersecurity protections, the auditing, the tabletop. exercises to go through. OK, if someone did hack the systems, how would we recover? And you Director Krebs used to say that the elections process. is a little bit like the Mitch Hedberg joke.

about an escalator to stairs. The ability that if something happens, you can recover and keep going is critical, is critical. JON STEWART: Right. MATT MASTERSON: And that's what election officials spent. So there are chain of custody procedures, access controls. A Democrat and a Republican in the state of Ohio. have to be present together to access the voting machines. One person doesn't get to just walk. in to the warehouse and access the machines, right? JON STEWART: Well, one person did and ended up. going to jail for nine years. MATT MASTERSON: Yeah, exactly. And not to dwell on the Tina Peters, but the Tina Peters point is important.

That's the election official in Colorado that was. just sentenced to nine years. JON STEWART: She was just sentenced to nine years. for allowing somebody to go in and access. the electronic voting records without any kind. of telling anybody. MATT MASTERSON: And the reason she was able to be prosecuted. is because of the documentation and access controls, the badge scanning and otherwise, to prove. she accessed her computer. She gave a badge to someone so that they could badge in. to get access to the systems. There was that chain of custody, so you could prove that she did these things and be prosecuted.

And then, Democrat and Republican clerks. in Colorado together denounced her and said, this is not who we are. If you're a Democrat or a Republican, we do not behave in this partisan way. and break the law like this. And that is--. JON STEWART: And the guardrails held. MATT MASTERSON: They held. And she was held accountable, which. is the most important part. That she didn't to get away with. It was critical and--. JON STEWART: Was the most important part. MATT MASTERSON: It's in part because the security controls. and because the Colorado clerks called her out and said,

that's not who we are. JON STEWART: Stood up to it. Stacey, let me ask you. So we have all these robust things there, but it doesn't explain, look, voting access is also going. to reflect the inequalities, socioeconomic and otherwise, in our system. And there was a point where I read that there was. a gigantic area of Houston that had. one ballot drop box for a million people, whereas in other areas--. how do you also go about, kind of, you can't obviously fix all the inequalities in an area,

but how do we fix it for the vote? How does that happen? STACEY ABRAMS: And that's why I think it's so important. that we're having all of these conversations at once, but that we learn to pull them apart. There is the dumpster fire of the specter of voter fraud. that does not exist because of people like Matt. That's an important piece. But we've got to think about all. of the steps that lead to trying to prove what happened. If you can knock off voters along the way, you have less to do at the very end.

And that's where we are responsible for telling. the partisans to do a better job. about assessing the process. That's why I talk about, can you register? We've seen states make it harder to register. We've seen states that have made it easier to kick. you off of the voter rolls. JON STEWART: Or remove even voting booths, correct? STACEY ABRAMS: Yes. Then there's, can you cast a ballot? When you have no polling place. When you are disabled, and they remove your ability. to vote by mail by making it harder. and you don't have someone who can assist you.

And they've made the ease of voting more difficult. We've got to think about all of the people who. get impacted by rights that are taken away. or things that are made harder. And that's what we should also be asking about, not just what happens at the very end, but what are all the steps along the way. and what are all the communities that are impacted. And those are decisions that your local elections officials. have to live with, but you've got to help. them get the resources. Because at the same time we saw this dumpster fire--. JON STEWART: Yes. STACEY ABRAMS: --we also saw cuts. to local election officials and their budgets.

and their ability to help voters. JON STEWART: And there's intimidation. of these same people that administer these things. They face death threats, the people with the guns. STACEY ABRAMS: Exactly. You make it hard for them to do their job. You take the money away, and then you say, well, why. didn't you do this job better? We've got to hold the system accountable. And the system has faces and names, and we know the names because they're on the ballots. So whoever wins the election, they're. now responsible for making the next election better. And that's your state legislator, your governor,

your secretary of state. It's your county commissioners. If you're in Wisconsin, apparently, it's your next door neighbor. It's everyone who has a hand in this. JON STEWART: Is there a correlation, Stacey, between how partisan the split is and, let's say--. Texas is a supermajority for that-- is there a correlation. between that and how unequal access. is to the system for voting? STACEY ABRAMS: Absolutely. It is a one-to-one correlation. And when you look at states where you've.

seen a change in demography and a change. in the body of communities participating in elections, you will see a constraint by the people in power. who risk losing power to this community. making it harder to vote. That said, that's how politics has always worked. So I don't want people to think it's only the Republicans. They're just the ones doing it. Now. JON STEWART: Democrats tried to gerrymander in New York. and ended up losing like five seats. STACEY ABRAMS: Exactly. And so the reality is, whoever has power, who tries to keep. that power by keeping you silent,

should not get to hold that power. We have the responsibility to tell our elected officials. to do better. But we also cannot be so focused on the headlines. that we miss the details. And democracy dies in the details. That's what's happening with voter suppression. And that's where I'm the most concerned. JON STEWART: Man, bars. That should be the masthead on The Washington Post, Democracy dies in details. I so appreciate just how well and how accessible you've both.

explained the challenges and the safeguards. that have put through here. The last thing I'll say is--. and I'll get your opinions on it because I'm not quite sure. where you go with it, but I've watched. this sort of electoral media political complex grow. It's kind of the military industrial complex, but it's kind of an electoral industrial complex. And the billions and billions of dollars that we now.

spend by the candidates, through super PACs and all. this, I'm wondering how it is that we begin to spend so much. more money on electioneering but so much less money. on elections. And is there a way, can we levy--. I don't know-- an electioneering tax. That, for all the super PACs and all the PAC--. 2% of all that money must be funneled. into the administration of elections.

Because we're getting our asses kicked on the back end. MATT MASTERSON: I appreciate this question. so much because, in the face--. so 2016, we see a nation state target election systems. Russia targeted election systems. on top of the other activity that took place. JON STEWART: Targeted it digitally. MATT MASTERSON: Digitally, through cyber actions. They gained access to voter registration data and websites. across the states. And so that puts this question squarely in a question.

of national security. This is not just a question of state and local funding. of elections, which is critically important part. of this, but that we need to invest in our democracy. in a way to recognize that our adversaries are actively. targeting our elections. And Cheryl Browning in Jackson County, Ohio, cannot be asked to defend herself against the Russians. without support from the federal government, which is happening through DHS CISA and the Election. Assistance Commission, support from the state. and counties but also funding.

And so what I've proposed in the past so that--. not to get too wonky, but there's something called. a chargeback in elections, where, for instance, in Ohio, if a locality has a mayor's race on the ballot, you charge that locality for the cost of running. that mayoral race if you're the local election office and same. with the state offices. Things like, we should have chargebacks that go up. to the federal level as well that say, hey, the cost of running a presidential election. is more expensive. Can you just please regularly put money in? And the federal government has, through COVID.

and in the aftermath of the Russian interference, put some money, which has been helpful to election officials. But what they really need is consistent and steady. funding from local, state, and federal levels so. that they can budget appropriately and begin to plan. a long-term strategy to secure their systems, their people, and their processes. JON STEWART: Hell, yeah. MATT MASTERSON: And that physical threat--. I know we didn't get to it-- that physical. threat that is happening to state. and local election officials-- JON STEWART: Intimidating. MATT MASTERSON: It's worse. It's death threats. My friend, Tina Barton, just saw.

a man go to jail for threatening. her and her family's lives. And there's good work being done. that the committee for safe and secure elections. are working with local law enforcement. to not just help secure those people. but talk publicly to voters about the security. of the process and the people that run it. And so we need to continue to invest in those people. JON STEWART: That's a great point. And I got to say, I am so damn tired of watching billionaires. influencing our elections through hundreds of millions. of dollars and all these things and doing nothing to bulk up.

the infrastructure and the safeguarding. and the integrity of those same elections. It's outrageous. STACEY ABRAMS: But I will say this, they try. Some of them tried. So in 2020, there were billionaires. who, through foundations, gave money. to Democratic and Republican-run counties. JON STEWART: That was the Zucker buck--. STACEY ABRAMS: Yes. No strings attached. Just said, we want to help pay for better elections. So you do what you need to do. State after state, conservative states made it. illegal to accept the money.

Refused to replace the money. So they cut the budgets but also said, you can't go and raise the money elsewhere. So you can't say-- JON STEWART: What? STACEY ABRAMS: --we don't-- yeah. so Georgia is one of those states, where Democrat and Republicans--. and it was a close race, and you could tell that. the money actually helped. But they've now made it illegal in several states. to accept those dollars. JON STEWART: So they're saying that that influences elections, but super Pac money and advertising-- and all. those other things have at it. STACEY ABRAMS: And that goes to Matt's point.

The problem is that unless there is a system to fund it, the local election officials have to figure. it out for themselves. You cannot tell them you have to do this gargantuan. job at personal risk. We won't pay for it, and we won't let you. find the money to pay for it. And therefore, we have to--. I don't think billionaires should be. funding our election system. I don't think that's the answer, but my point is you cannot say, it's broken, but we're not.

going to let you fix it. MATT MASTERSON: All of that is correct and true. We shouldn't have to turn to private funding of elections. This is an inherent government function in a matter. of national security. JON STEWART: I'm just dealing with the reality. as it is, which is they're not going to prioritize it. STACEY ABRAMS: And the problem is the people. who don't want to prioritize it will continue. to be in power until we find a way to either hold. them accountable or change it. The last thing I'll say is this, every person listening. to this has the ability, the authority, and the capacity.

to be engaged. You can volunteer during this election. You can call your state and local elected officials. and ask them. Because even though we're focusing on swing states. and the limits that we see that are there , across this country, elections can be better everywhere. I think maybe Washington State, they're like show offs, but pretty much everywhere else--. I mean, look, they like send you an engraved invitation. There's like a booklet. I mean, it's pretty robust. But everywhere else, we should be.

demanding better of the people who get to make our decisions. They should be accountable once they get the job. And every single person has the authority. as a citizen to demand better. It's not just Congress. It's not just the presidency. It's every state and local elected official. who has a voice who should be talking about the elections. that got them into office. They should be responsible for helping. make sure those elections are as secure, as safe, and as. accessible as they can be. MATT MASTERSON: In 2000, 40% of voters.

had access to early voting or vote by mail without an excuse. We're at 97%. That doesn't mean we don't have challenges, but 97% of voters. now have access to those options, and that's how their voice gets heard in that way. And so making sure that they're aware of their options, that we're out supporting the state and local election. officials sharing accurate, truthful, factual information about the process. is critical so that they feel empowered to go. vote and have confidence that their vote is counted as cast. JON STEWART: Fantastic, guys. Thank you so much for the explanations.

I find myself inspired by the two of you. I find myself actually uplifted. So I thank you for that because I was not. feeling that way prior, because it seems like there's. a really clear path forward. Stacey Abrams, voting rights activist, host. of Assembly Required. Please listen to that. Matt Masterson, senior director of Microsoft Democracy Forward. program and also was the deputy chief. of staff, chief information officer for the Ohio secretary. of state, who is a Republican, before obviously joining Obama.

with the election commissions. You guys are doing God's work and really terrific stuff. And thank you both so much for joining us. MATT MASTERSON: Thank you so much. STACEY ABRAMS: Thank you for having us. JON STEWART: Man, I am shot out of a cannon by those two. I'm fired up. I'm going to go administer some fucking elections. That's what I'm going to do. Brittany Mehmedovic, Lauren Walker, our erstwhile producers, what did you think when. you were listening to that? What was the feeling? LAUREN WALKER: I wish I saw this on the news more.

JON STEWART: Come on. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Amen. Amen, sister friend. JON STEWART: Brittany--. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Wow. JON STEWART: You're in there with the rhyme. I got to tell you. And they came at it from such different areas. I thought, Matt, much more about like, these are the ways. that they're administered, but I thought Stacey's point. about the importance of accessibility as well, it's not just what happens after you vote. but all the things that go into the accessibility.

before you vote. Those two things are so crucial. LAUREN WALKER: And it was a Republican. and a Democrat coming together--. JON STEWART: What? LAUREN WALKER: --agreeing on the administration. of our elections like--. JON STEWART: Lauren, how dare you? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: This is history making. JON STEWART: History. A day timed, of all those things. And I found that-- and you it was crazy. We could have kept going. Lauren was in the chat, which, by the way-- so. for those of you who may not know at home, on the pod, we have a chat. And there's one-- I just want to read you this,

Lauren throws in their. Topics we can still explore, intimidation of voter, worker, certification, lawsuits. And then directly underneath that, she writes, five minutes left. LAUREN WALKER: I was trying to emphasize. the point that we could still touch those things. JON STEWART: But it was great because I see it. and I'm like, oh yeah, there's all that stuff. That's great. I'm not sure how long we've been doing this. And then right away, she pops in, five minutes left.

And I'm like, ooh, that's not going to make up. But fantastic, man. I thought they were fantastic. Before we go, anything from the viewers this week, anything we need to do-- LAUREN WALKER: Oh, do we? JON STEWART: Oh boy. All right, here we go. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: So this first one. JON STEWART: All right, BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Jon--. JON STEWART: Yeah. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: --erstwhile means. former, as in, they used to be my producers. Surely this isn't the case. JON STEWART: Oh no. Is that true?

BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Perhaps you mean steadfast? JON STEWART: Steadfast. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Resolute? Unfaltering? May I also suggest talented, dazzling, indispensable. So this question is from Lauren and I. JON STEWART: Can I tell you something? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Have we been slowly getting fired? JON STEWART: I thought erstwhile meant that. I thought erstwhile meant like solid. and dependable and all that. I didn't know that it meant-- oh my God. You know what other word always screws me is sanguine,

because I always think it's something different than it is, but I like the way it sounds. And so I'll misuse it all the time. LAUREN WALKER: I have a word like that. that always has trouble in my mind, Iterate and reiterate. I don't understand why if you repeat something you. have to re-repeat it, but--. JON STEWART: So I think reiterate feels like the more. common usage, but I wonder if iterate, regardless and irregardless.

Like I wonder if iterate is actually the one. you're supposed to use. I don't know. LAUREN WALKER: I don't know either. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Me either. I'm just happy I'm not getting fired. JON STEWART: Not only are you not getting fired. It was meant as laudatory. It was meant as laudatory. And yet-- oh, thank God for listeners. And fantastic. And we do appreciate. Brittany, how can they continue to send us these correctives? Because we do need them. I need them.

LAUREN WALKER: On Twitter, we are Weekly Show. Pod, Instagram threads and TikTok, we are Weekly Show podcast. And please like and subscribe our YouTube. channel, The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. JON STEWART: Yeah, you should do all that. As always, I want to thank my talented, hardworking, job. secure, lead producer Lauren Walker, producer for Brittany. Mehmedovic, and unfortunately, our erstwhile video editor.

and engineer, Rob Bertola. No, that's not. He's also talented and steadfast. Steadfast is the better one. Because I do like a good--. erstwhile just feels so good in your mouth. It's got good mouth feel, but fuck it. That's gone. Video editor and engineer Rob Bertola, Audio editor. and engineer Nicole Boyce, researcher. and associate producer Jillian Speer, and our executive producers Chris McShane. Katie Gray, my God, thank you all for joining us. We shall see you next week.

The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. is a Comedy Central podcast that's produced by Paramount. Audio and Busboy Productions.