Georgia is on America’s mind. At 11:59 p.m. Wednesday, the state is supposed to complete its recount of votes in the presidential election.

Brant Frost V, second vice chairman of Georgia’s Republican Party, joins the show to explain the state’s recount process and why he is suspicious of the recount in Fulton County, which includes the city of Atlanta. Frost also describes his own experience as a poll watcher and why Georgia appears to be turning a little more blue with each election.

We also cover these stories:

• Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
• Scott Atlas, a top adviser to President Donald Trump on the coronavirus, counsels families to gather for Thanksgiving if they can.
• Joe Biden identifies who some of his top White House officials would be if he is inaugurated as the 46th president of the United States.

Listen to the podcast below or read the lightly edited transcript.

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

“The Daily Signal Podcast” is available on Ricochet, Apple Podcasts, Pippa, Google Play, and Stitcher. All of our podcasts may be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You also may leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com.

Virginia Allen: I am joined by Brant Frost, the second vice chair of Georgia’s Republican Party. Brant, welcome to “The Daily Signal Podcast.”

Brant Frost: Thank you very much.

Allen: Brant, Georgia is on the minds right now of many Americans. And over the past several days, Georgia has been going through a recount of presidential election votes. And as of right now, The Associated Press reports that former Vice President Joe Biden is winning Georgia by only about 14,000 votes. And that’s out of about 5 million votes in total from Georgia.

So, both President [Donald] Trump and the Republican Party requested that there be a recount in the state because it is so close. And you actually have been really, really involved in Georgia state politics for a long time. Probably a decade, correct?

Frost: Yes. That is correct. Mainly since 2008 when I turned 18.

Allen: OK. Right as soon as you could, you jumped in. So tell us a little bit just about how common this is, to see a recount in Georgia. Is this something that’s happened before where we’ve seen calls for a presidential recount in the state of Georgia?

Frost: No, this is very unusual. This is also the first time we’re using our new paper ballot system. Since 2001, when we began the transition over, we have only used electronic voting with no paper ballots, unless you were voting absentee by mail. This is the first time we’re using our new paper ballots for voting in elections.

And so this is also the first time we’re having a recount in a presidential election in Georgia as well. A lot of firsts in this year. Also, the first time we’ve ever had two Senate elections at the same time as well that both went to runoffs. So it’s definitely a year of firsts in Georgia, as in America.

Allen: It is. It’s a big year in the state of Georgia.

You mentioned that transition of going from electronic to paper ballots. Dominion Voting Systems is the new kind of organization group that Georgia tasked, essentially, with handling the election process, as far as implementing those new machines.

What do you know about Dominion Voting Systems? We’re hearing a lot about maybe how they’re not credible. Are you very familiar with them and with the states that have formerly used them?

Frost: I am not. So, unlike some other folks, I’m not going to pretend to be an expert and talk at length about it. So I can’t speak to that other than to say that in our own county where I was one of the [people] observing the electoral process of doing a recanvass—which I should point out is different than a recount.

A recanvass is what most people think when they think [of] the word recount. During recanvass, a particular race goes, and in this case, the presidential election, and all the paper ballots that were cast before Election Day and on Election Day are counted. And just that one race, just a single race is counted.

The amount of time it would take to recount every single race or recanvass every single race would just be enormous.

So one race is chosen, in this case the presidential election, for obvious reasons. And each ballot is counted by hand. And you have tables set up in a room with two people at each table. And they will count the votes.

First they will separate them out. They take a big stack. They know how many votes are in the box. Then they’ll separate them by candidate they voted for. Then they will count them out.

Each group will be counted and the amount written down. And if all those numbers put together of votes for Biden, Trump, [Jo] Jorgensen, write-in, and indeterminate votes, if those numbers equal to the amount that was on the box originally, then that is considered a successful recanvass.

In Coweta County with over 77,000 votes, it was determined that every single vote cast President Trump indicated by machine was also indicated by a hand count, 51,501 votes, both machine and human count. For Joe Biden, the same was correct.

However, he added one vote because one Joe Biden voter who apparently did not realize that Joseph R. Biden was Joe Biden wrote in the name Joe Biden for his absentee ballot. So the election review board determined that his vote should count as a Joe Biden vote.

And the ballot review board consists of one Republican and one Democrat representative, which I appointed the Republican representatives since I’m the chairman of the county party here.

So we did not find a problem with the scanners indicating a massive shift, or indeed any kind of shift whatever, in our county. But I can’t speak to other counties. And I certainly can’t speak to the ethics of the people who run the Fulton County board of elections, for example.

Allen: Sure, sure. So, Coweta County, where you live and where you were participating in that recount, is, gosh, about little less than an hour south, southwest of the city of Atlanta. So tell me a little bit more about that experience. You were there helping to do the recanvassing on both Friday and Saturday.

We’ve heard a lot during this kind of poll-watching scenario as it’s played out with mail-in votes that people have complained about not being able to get close enough to actually see the ballots. Was everyone who you were there with able to be close to see the ballots and to all agree, Democrat and Republican, “Yes, this vote is for this individual”?

Frost: Well, the county employees who are poll workers who have been pulled in for this special task, they actually count the votes.

Typically, you will find a fairly even mix of Republican volunteers and Democrat volunteers who are poll workers, but they’re not chosen based on their party. But there’s a good chance that one of them is a Republican.

What you have is you take a typical room of about 10 tables. Depending on the county, there will be either one or two people observing, allowed to walk around and see the process. Realistically, you can’t stand at one table for very long without missing what’s going on at other tables.

Some people might think it makes more sense to have one observer per counting table watching the process, but the limits that were imposed, and it varies from county to county, were one person for every five tables. And that’s what we had.

You have a room with eight tables, two people counting at each table, and two representatives from both parties are allowed to walk around the floor where the tables are, walk around the floor and stop at places. They’re not allowed to speak to the counters and disrupt their count, but they are allowed to watch what’s going on and keep their own count if they wish.

We also have a lot of observers who are permitted to stand at the back of the room, but they really can’t see anything from there. So basically, each party is permitted two people for every five tables.

Allen: It sounds like Coweta County is a great model for the rest of the state. You all have really done this quite well. It sounds very organized.

Have you been hearing from other counties in Georgia? Have they experienced a similar smooth process or have there been complaints?

Frost: The recanvass did not indicate any major shift in votes, except for in Floyd County where a computer card was found with some votes from a precinct, which had previously not been counted.

When the voting machines in each precinct print out a ballot, you type it in on a screen, you type in your choices, the ballot is printed, and then you scan it through a scanner, and then the ballot goes through. And on the other side, you have a big box, which is locked. Well, they don’t open up the box and count the ballots. They take the result of the little scanner, so like a USB drive.

Well, one of those drives in Floyd County, and of course it’s not a drive, but I just use that an example, was missed. When they brought in the precinct results, each precinct brought in their box and their little chips and draws, one was left, [it] had just been not uploaded.

So that recanvass found those extra votes and it added about 2,600 votes to the total statewide. And we think about two-thirds of them were for President Trump.

Now, if this election were like Florida with a 600-vote margin, that would have been enough to flip the election in President Trump’s favor. But of course, when the margins [are] more than 10,000, that’s not going to be the case.

But other than that one example, we did not see any major shifts. However, the issue really does not come down to a statewide problem. It comes down to one or two and really about six counties that are all Democrat, all large, all urban.

In particular, one county where there have been very credible accusations that Republican poll watchers at the Fulton County board of elections where they were counting votes were told to go home at a big arena, because it’s a huge process in Fulton County, that’s Atlanta, Georgia. They were told to go home and they were going to start in the morning.

So, the Republican observers went home at about 10 p.m. And then shortly thereafter, Fulton County started counting their votes again with no Republicans present and then kept counting until about 1 a.m.

So, if there was any kind of illegal voting or any kind of fraudulent ballots being counted, that would certainly have been a time when we just don’t know what was happening. And no Republicans were permitted to be there. No one apparently thought to call them to tell them to come back.

Now, Fulton County is an overwhelmingly Democrat county run top to bottom by Democrats. The Democrats’ well-known respect for the integrity of elections can be demonstrated in that they were so distressed over the 2016 election results, though curiously not distressed over the 1960 election results.

And of course we all know very well, the Democrats are well-known pensioned for fair and equitable elections in big cities like New York and Chicago and where the dead will not only rise again at the second coming, but they rise every four years and vote Democrat.

Allen: It’s certainly problematic when we begin to see the number of deceased individuals who are still on those voter rolls in, like you say, a lot of these big cities.

Now, I want to ask a little bit more about this Atlanta situation. Was there any explanation given by the mayor of Atlanta, by those that were in charge overseeing that polling location, as to how this error was made, that Republicans were sent home and then still ballots were continued to be counted late into the night?

Frost: Everyone has an excuse. I don’t know if it’s a good one, but everyone has an excuse. Every child caught with their hand in the cookie jar has a good reason, or at least a reason why they were doing it. Whether or not anyone believes them and it saves them from punishment is another matter altogether.

There have been multiple explanations and so it’s hard to say which one is the correct one. There’s talk about a major water leakage, a pipe burst. There’s talk about how the secretary of state and others were asking for them to continue the count, because after all, 10 p.m. is rather early to stop counting votes, particularly in an election as close as this and with Georgia being a swing state.

So there were calls for them to come back … and at least a plausible deniability situation where under such a stressful situation, someone can always claim that, “Well, I just forgot,” or, “It slipped through the cracks to remind everybody to come back.” So it’s very difficult to prove malice of intent.

Allen: Sure, sure. So, do you foresee any situation where all other Georgia counties [are] given the green light, but Fulton County, that Atlanta county, has said, “Let’s double check this and let’s recount this county one more time”? Or is that probably not possible?

Frost: Unfortunately, today it is very difficult, as in previous times, to, after the fact, detect voter fraud and malfeasance for the simple fact that a ballot cannot be pulled out of the stack once it’s stuck into it.

In other words, you may have an illegally cast vote or 1,000 of them, but to look at them, they don’t look any different than any other ballot. They do not have a person’s name on them. They do not have a bright neon sticker that says, “Hey, I’m a fake vote.” They look like anyone else’s vote. And it is impossible to identify them once they’d been cast in with all the legitimate votes.

Allen: Let’s talk just for a moment about Georgia as a whole. I lived in Georgia for a number of years. Went to high school there. And back in 2010, 2011, Georgia really was a solidly red, conservative state.

So, Brant, what has happened? As someone who’s been so involved in Georgia politics and policy for so long, what has happened in your state to where now it’s definitely solidly a swing state?

Frost: You have to remember that the Democrat Party in Georgia had been living off the residual effects of over 100 years of domination in our state politics. We hadn’t had a Republican governor since 1872. So by the 1990s, there was a definite shift beginning in Georgia politics.

And starting in 1992, the Republicans had a major surge with every two years, we gained substantially in the state Legislature. We gained congressional delegations. We took control of the majority of the Congress from Georgia in 1994. And we came very close to winning the governor’s race in 1994.

And as a result, the Republicans continued to build up and gain in strength and momentum. And the Democrats, without a strong grassroots base, because they’d been in power for so long it had atrophied, they hadn’t felt the need to have one. As a result, the Republicans in 2002, in a big upset, won the governor’s race.

Many people expected Republicans to be competitive in 2006 for the governor’s race, in 1998, but we lost in ’98. And in 2002, it was thought that Gov. Roy Barnes was too hard to beat, but Sonny Perdue, who is now agricultural secretary in the Trump Administration, actually defeated, in a big upset, Gov. Barnes.

And ever since 2002, the Republican Party has been very strong in Georgia, has dominated statewide politics, won every governor’s race, won every Senate election, and won every constitutional officer starting in 2010.

But that obscured … two major factors: Lack of funding and resources for the Democrats and the fact that the Obama presidency destroyed most of the Democrat Party in the South.

Across the South, you saw from states like Arkansas and Oklahoma to West Virginia and Kentucky, Democrat candidates going down to the seat largely as a result of the unpopularity of the Obama administration.

So when you consider that from 2008 to 2016, Republicans had great years in Georgia, you have to realize that that was during the Obama presidency and the fact that the Democrat Party had no real operation capable of contesting Georgia.

But starting in 2013, the Democrats began to rebuild their effort. Stacey Abrams was a major leader in that effort. And since 2013, they have spent seven years rebuilding. And to today, we now find ourselves in a situation where they’re able to compete with us.

Georgia’s demographics are largely the same as they were four years ago. In fact, exit poll data indicates that on key levels, it’s almost exactly the same. The difference is that the Democrat Party is more well-equipped, better funded, and able to compete.

And they also believe they can win in Georgia. Four years ago, they saw Georgia as a possible bonus, but they didn’t see it as a major target state like they did this year.

The Republican Party, until recently, has also not been as prepared as it might be, largely due to the fact that the Democrats appeared to be weak. So why do you have to train extra hard to fight an opponent who seems weak and easy to defeat?

Fortunately, last year, when I was elected vice chairman, we also elected a new chairman, David Shafer, former state senator and former executive director of the Georgia Republican Party, under whose leadership we have been able to basically accomplish the work of about four years in less than 18 months.

And since he was elected, we’ve trained over 13,000 volunteers, we’ve held voter drives around the state, we’ve knocked on over a million, I believe it’s over 2 million doors now, and we’ve made millions of phone calls.

This is more than any the Republican Party has done in Georgia in any two presidential elections combined, going back for many cycles. So we have been very encouraged to see the outpouring of support since the November election right here.

You would think people would be discouraged, but actually it’s caused people to sign up and volunteer and to do their part because there is so much that we have seen in the last few weeks with Democrats talking about moving to Georgia that has inspired Republicans to become more active and to do more because you saw so many Republicans feel that Georgia was a safe state and they took it for granted.

Not our leadership, but just a rank-and-file Republican who might have, if they lived in Florida or Ohio, have gone out and volunteered, maybe knocked on some doors or made some calls. But because they felt they were in a safe red state, they did not do what they could have done.

The scales have fallen from people’s eyes. They now realize they have to fight because Georgia is a swing state, as much as Florida ever was.

Indeed, if you look at the results, Georgia was much closer than Florida or Ohio. So in some ways, Florida is now a pink state leaning red and Ohio is a red state, but North Carolina and Georgia are swing states. So we have to take that into consideration.

But we are prepared to meet the challenge. We have thousands of people all over the country who are offering to come on their own expense to volunteer to help in these efforts in Georgia, in the upcoming runoffs. So we’re very encouraged.

And I think it’s important for people to realize that the differences in Georgia are not so much due to changes in demographics, although we have seen some of that, but mainly due to the fact that up until recently only one political party was actually playing to win and the other party did not have the resources to compete, much like a major athletic event where you have two teams at a baseball or basketball game.

And in a major sporting event, one team is obviously better funded, has better players, has the resources to hire the best coaches and such, and they’re going to roll over their opponents because they simply are outclassing them.

Now that the two parties are much more evenly classed, you see Georgia being what it truly is, a competitive state.

Allen: Brant, we just so appreciate your time today. It’s just fascinating to hear some of this history and get into a little bit of just the details of what is happening on the ground in Georgia, what you’re seeing, what you’ve experienced. Thank you so much for joining the show.

Frost: Thank you.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito ordered county election boards in Pennsylvania to comply with guidance requiring them to keep ballots received after 8 p.m. Election Day “in a safe, secure, and sealed container separate from other voted ballots,” as Newsweek and other outlets reported Friday. How could Alito’s directive affect returns for the presidential election?

Additionally, The Associated Press reported that 24 Wisconsin counties had completed canvassing of election results as of Monday morning, but that “all 72 must be in before President Donald Trump could call for a recount.” How long will that take, and will other states besides Georgia recount?

Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, joins the podcast to discuss.

We also cover these stories:

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

• The Supreme Court hears arguments about ending Obamacare, but some conservative justices apparently don’t see a need for the health care law to be repealed in its entirety.
• Attorney General William Barr announces that prosecutors at the Justice Department can look into evidence of voting irregularities.
• Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., pledges that he will not support packing the Supreme Court with more justices or ending the Senate filibuster.

“The Daily Signal Podcast” is available on Ricochet, Apple Podcasts, Pippa, Google Play, and Stitcher. All of our podcasts may be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You also can leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com.

Rachel del Guidice: I’m joined today on “The Daily Signal Podcast” by Jason Snead. He’s the executive director of the Honest Elections Project and also a former colleague of mine at The Heritage Foundation. Jason, it’s great to have you with us on “The Daily Signal Podcast.”

Jason Snead: It’s great to be here.

Del Guidice: Well, Jason, to start off with the question that’s really foremost on everyone’s minds, do you think there was any voter fraud in this election or any potential voter fraud?

Snead: Well, there’s always voter fraud in any election to some degree. We know that because you can look at the convictions, it’s on the Heritage voter fraud database. And you see that in essentially every election cycle there are people who are willing to cheat, willing to take illegal steps to try to rig or steal elections.

So the media narrative that you get that voter fraud just does not exist in any way, shape, or form is simply erroneous, and it has a lot more to do with political spin than with reality.

The question now seems to be, is there evidence of widespread, organized, systemic fraud that could’ve thrown a presidential election? That’s been certainly alleged by the president, by folks involved in his campaign, and his campaign’s legal team. And I think that we’re waiting to see what evidence they’ve got to back up those assertions.

So I think that we need to be, of course, keeping a close eye on that. We need to be careful not to believe necessarily every claim of fraud that we see. But I think beyond any doubt whatsoever, fraud does occur, and it probably occurred in the 2020 election as well.

Del Guidice: Since you’re saying it probably did occur, how do you think, Jason, this should be handled and investigated?

Snead: I think it should be handled carefully and deliberately. And I think that if the facts ultimately do merit prosecutions against individuals who did commit fraud, then I think the prosecutions would be justified.

But what we, I think, need to also be careful about is jumping to conclusions too quickly about the degree to which fraud occurred.

There are undoubtedly instances that are more credible than others that have already come to light. For instance, I saw a report out of Wisconsin that, I believe it was four felons voted in the 2020 election despite being apparently ineligible to do so. I believe that they were all on parole or probation.

So that sort of a thing, to my mind, would obviously be very credible. But I think that in terms of some of the grander concerns, I think that we need to see what evidence we’ve got and examine that very carefully.

Del Guidice: I’m curious about your perspective on one of the big headlines yesterday. Attorney General Bill Barr announced that he will allow the [Justice Department] to investigate voter fraud. What all does this mean, and is this appropriate?

Snead: Well, I certainly share the attorney general’s perspective, at least in so far as he spelled it out in the letter, that credible accusations of fraud or malfeasance in the elections absolutely need to be investigated.

One of the most difficult things about this area of law and policy is that proving that fraud occurred is a very difficult thing to do. And sometimes what happens is claims of fraud, even credible ones, wind up not getting investigated or not getting prosecuted, particularly after an election is over, for various reasons.

So I certainly share the sense that if you’ve got a concern that fraud could impact the election of 2020, that it ought to be investigated.

And there’s really two reasons to do that, right? One is that, of course, if the concern is valid and if fraud did occur, then you absolutely want to get to the bottom of that and bring the people who are responsible to justice.

But the flip side of that is that if fraud did not occur, then you want to be able to say with certainty that it did not happen, and here’s the evidence to rebut the concern that it did.

Because at the end of the day, you want to be able to tell voters that the election was conducted fairly, that it was conducted honestly, and that the result can be trusted.

I don’t think that you can tell voters that if the response to every single concern that gets raised either about mischief or mismanagement, which is another part of this conversation, the mismanagement of elections or bureaucratic incompetence, if all of those concerns are simply going to be brushed aside, I think that sends the wrong message to voters.

And I’m not sure that you can seriously say that you’re taking seriously the credibility of democracy if you’re just ignoring all problems.

Del Guidice: Speaking of potential issues of voter fraud, The Federalist reported on Monday that there might have been incidents of curing of ballots in Wisconsin. And this is where officials count a ballot that is legally disqualified or difficult to read.

How, Jason, do you think this should be responded to, and are there other instances of voter irregularities that you’ve heard of yourself?

Snead: We’ve been looking at some of the concerns about irregularities and trying to determine, frankly, what actually has happened in some of these places like Philadelphia, like Detroit, and elsewhere, and understand what some of the problems were.

I think that really one of the things when it comes to counting ineligible ballots and concerns about the process—which, that’s what a lot of the lawsuits that have been filed are about, is really about the process.

One of the overarching concerns that often is getting left out of media coverage is the fact that all across the country, states, particularly battleground states, wound up either changing their election rules or having those rules essentially changed for them in the course of often very partisan, very politicized lawsuits that were brought by groups on the left, including the [Democratic National Committee] itself, where they were suing to invalidate voter identification and verification requirements for absentee ballots, to try to legalize ballot harvesting, to really change the rules.

And it’s sort of similar in some respects to changing the rules of baseball in the middle of the seventh inning. No one would really think that that was entirely fair or trust that the only reason for changing the rule is just for the benefit of the fans, not because the umpire was picking favorites or picking sides. But that’s what was going on.

So that risks not only, of course, the credibility of the election, but it also risks confusion about what the rules actually are.

And so I think that one of the big lessons that we need to take away from 2020 is that rules should not be changed, particularly not through partisan lawsuits, close to an election because that really risks the integrity of the entire process.

Del Guidice: Well, Jason, even though the Biden campaign has claimed victory in the presidential election, the Trump campaign has filed lawsuits with current litigation pending in, I think, at least five states. I know in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona. Can you sort of walk us through the latest on what’s happening on those efforts?

Snead: Well, as I said, pretty much all of these cases at this point are talking about procedural issues that deal with the counting of votes.

So for instance, trying to get ballots that were received after a statutory deadline for the receipt of absentee ballots segregated. That happened in Pennsylvania. Concerns about poll watching. Concerns about ballots.

In Maricopa County, [Arizona], I saw one lawsuit there about ballots where the concern is about an apparent over-vote situation where, for one reason or another, the machine was reading a ballot that was cast and counting it anyway.

And the problem when you’ve got an over-vote situation is that that would essentially cancel out the votes of that particular person for, in this case, president.

So we’ve got a lot of concerns about procedure. And some of these, of course, could affect the vote count. And any lawsuit that does affect the vote count should be taken seriously.

What we’re now seeing, really what we’re now waiting to see, I think, is some of the lawsuits that could potentially affect the outcome of the election to the degree that would be necessary to overcome [former Vice President Joe] Biden’s lead in places like Pennsylvania where the separation between them is several—I think it’s about 40,000 votes, 45,000 votes at the time that we’re recording this.

Del Guidice: On Friday, Newsweek reported that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito made an order saying that all county boards of election must comply with guidance that requires them to keep ballots received after 8 p.m. on Tuesday in a safe, secure, and sealed container separate from other voter ballots.

What is your perspective on this directive from Justice Alito? And what’s the update on what’s happening here as we’re now getting into the middle of the week?

Snead: Well, the order that Alito gave to segregate ballots is mostly to preserve the ability for any postelection litigation that impacts those late-arriving ballots to actually be carried out and potentially to invalidate those votes, depending on the outcome of the litigation.

The backstory here is that going into Election Day, there was a torrent of legal activity in Pennsylvania because you had a situation where the left was suing the state. The secretary of state was trying to enter into a consent decree to change the state’s ballot receipt deadline from Election Day to several days after the election.

And eventually, that wound up going to the United States Supreme Court, and the court deadlocked and split, four justices to four justices, allowing a ruling by the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court upholding that extension to be in effect for this election.

Now that case in Pennsylvania is back before the Supreme Court. There’s a cert petition pending. A number of states filed amicus briefs supporting the court taking that case.

My group has filed one, as well as others, supporting the court taking the case and deciding the issue once and for all—whether or not a court can indeed extend the statutory deadline or whether that power is vested in the legislature and the federal Constitution. And there are some variations on that question in other states as well.

So the order from Justice Alito is preserving the segregation of ballots that arrived after 8 p.m. on Election Day so that in the event that the court does take up the issue and in the event that it does rule that those ballots are constitutionally invalid, that you still know what ballots are actually affected, what the numbers are, and then you can have a remedy available to you.

Del Guidice: In terms of recounts, some states, and I know the Trump campaign is asking for those, The Associated Press reported this week that 24 counties in Wisconsin had completed their canvassing of last week’s election results as of Monday morning, but that also two counties must be in before the Trump campaign could call for a recount.

How long, Jason, do you think it will be before Wisconsin does a recount? And are there other states that you expect recounts from?

Snead: I’m not sure how long we’ll be waiting on Wisconsin, but I do expect that there will be recounts. There could potentially be a recount in Arizona. There could be a recount in Georgia.

Pennsylvania seems unlikely that if there is a recount that it would seriously affect the vote tallies just because, historically speaking, recounts don’t usually result in significant changes to the numbers.

We’re talking something on the order of hundreds or maybe a couple thousand votes at the outside. So I think that probably a recount is going to be most significant in places like Arizona and Georgia where it’s relatively closely divided.

Del Guidice: Per the Congressional Research Service, the Electoral College will be meeting in just about a month to cast their votes. And since this is just about a month away, maybe a month and a few days, how far do you think litigation will be able to progress before this vote happens?

Snead: I think that we’ve got a long way to go before we get to the meeting of the Electoral College. Of course, if you’re looking for some historical precedent here, look back to 2000 with Bush v. Gore, when the Supreme Court issued its ruling right before the safe harbor deadline.

The safe harbor deadline is the statutory deadline that Congress has set that states have to certify their elections and impanel a seat of electors for the Electoral College. And as long as they get it in before that date, then it’s not subject to second-guessing by Congress. And so that extended right up until that deadline.

So we could be looking at litigation that could stretch for the next four or five weeks until we get to the safe harbor deadline in early December this year. And I guess the alternative argument here is that the litigation could be resolved before that, but certainly we could be in for a scenario where it goes the full distance.

Del Guidice: Going back briefly to election irregularities, the Public Interest Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit last month alleging that 21,000 dead people were on the Pennsylvania voter rolls before Election Day.

Jason, do you think that this impacted the election outcome, having these 21,000 people that shouldn’t have been registered still on the voter rolls?

Snead: I certainly think that it’s a concerning situation anytime you see that a state is not adequately maintaining its voter rolls because there are actually two federal laws that require that states take action to maintain clean, accurate, and reliable voter registration records. And the reasons are pretty obvious, right?

If you’re talking about having an honest and fair election, that starts with having clean voter rolls so that you actually know how many voters there are in your community and who is eligible and who is not to cast a ballot. That’s a very important thing to understand.

And every year you’ve got about 10% of the U.S. population that moves. You’ve got many millions more who either pass away or become ineligible because they’re, say, convicted of a felony. So the voter rolls are not static things. They have to constantly be updated.

But despite the fact that it is not only legally required but it’s just common sense to be cleaning up your voter rolls and removing old, outdated, or duplicative entries, that has become a very contentious process.

Many states quite deliberately drag their feet in this and do not prioritize list maintenance, even actively resist engaging in the practice. And there are a lot of outside groups on the left that will sue states trying to stop them.

So I look at examples like this as just further evidence of the fact that states are often not doing enough in this area and need to be doing more. Because, again, to get back to an earlier point, you want to be able to show voters that the system works, that it works well, that you can trust the results.

And when you see information like that coming out, that’s a very concerning thing because, yes, not only does that open up the door to fraud, but it also sends up a red flag that maybe the system is not working as well as it should.

Del Guidice: On that note, Jason, as we wrap up, many voters right now are concerned about fraud and how ballots are being counted. Do you have concerns about election integrity, specifically in this 2020 election?

Snead: Well, I do. And in fact, I’ve been concerned from the beginning because we saw almost immediately when the pandemic hit and all of the closures started that there was a concerted push to take advantage of that situation to push a political agenda that amounted to reshaping elections and doing away with lots of the basic safeguards: verification, identification, ballot harvesting bans.

You saw legislation being pushed in Congress. You saw litigation being brought in nearly every state by some very deep-pocketed liberal organizations, including the Democratic Party itself.

It was a concerted strategic push to undermine the safeguards and the rules that, by and large, Americans support and that undergird the system and provide, I think, some great benefits to help with democracy.

So I do have concerns that going forward, not only in terms of how we’re processing 2020, but then looking to future elections, I have concerns about this trend continuing where the process of voting itself is increasingly politicized, the rhetoric surrounding it is increasingly toxic.

And you’ve now got a baseline standard that really began back in 2018 with Stacey Abrams refusing to concede to her opponent in the gubernatorial race to now where you basically got a situation where if my side doesn’t win, then I think that the entire process is rigged.

I think that’s a very difficult place to be if we’re talking about the election system writ large. We need to talk about this from the issue of principles, not politics. Preserving the integrity of our elections goes hand in hand with preserving the credibility of democracy.

And I think that we need to be fighting for fair, transparent voting processes protected with things like voter ID laws, protected with ballot harvesting bans that make sure that everyone knows that their vote counts and that their voice is going to be heard

Del Guidice: What a strong note to end on. Jason, thank you so much for joining us on “The Daily Signal Podcast.” It’s great having you.

Snead: Thank you.