A look at Trump's plans to restrict voting

This message comes from stars. The Global Phenomenon Outlander returns for its final farewell.

Claire and Jamie Story comes to an unforgettable end. Don't miss the final season of Outlander.

Watch now, only on stars.

This is Fresh Air. I'm Terry Gross. Election season is underway with primaries today in Texas,

North Carolina, and Arkansas. Meanwhile, President Trump is pushing Congress to pass legislation

the SAV Act that would change how every American citizen registers to vote and votes.

Predictions are that millions of American citizens would be unable to fill the ID requirements.

It would cause chaos at the polls, make it chaotic for counties and states overseeing elections,

and possibly make a challenging to decipher who really won.

But Congress seems unwilling to pass that, so President Trump is threatening to issue an executive

order that would do all that and more. My guest Rick Hassan is an expert in election law.

He founded the popular election law blog. He's a professor of law and political science

and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law and the author of numerous

books, including a real right to vote, how a constitutional amendment can safeguard American

democracy, and the forthcoming book, Unbent Ark, the rise and decline of American democracy

1964 to 2024. Rick Hassan, welcome back to Fresh Air. I want to start by expressing my condolences.

I know their mother died in late February about a week ago, and I'm very sorry.

Thank you. I'd like to talk with you about the executive order or orders that President

Trump is threatening to sign. One of them, this story was broken by the Washington Post last

week, and it has to do with a conspiracy theory. Would you describe the conspiracy theory?

Well, there are a number of conspiracy theories and a kind of whole election denial complex

that's floating out there. People who believe that there was or claimed that they believe that

there was interference in the 2020 elections in the 2024 elections by various foreign entities,

including China and Iran, and the idea would be that Donald Trump would use his powers

to protect the national security of the United States by imposing a number of various restrictions

on how people register to vote, how people vote, and how states tabulate. That is how they count

the votes. Can you be more specific about how this executive order, which will explain in a minute,

ties in with this conspiracy theory about foreign interference in 2020 and 2024,

leaving out, by the way, Russia, which really did try to interfere and which did have bots and

stuff that were interfering with reality, with truth. Right. There's different kinds of

interference that have been alleged. You're referring back to what happened in 2016

when the Russian government had a kind of influence operation to try to sway public opinion

through various impersonation and false statements and things that were posted on social media.

People debate how much of an effect that had, but that was trying to kind of hack the minds of

the American people. It wasn't actually hacking voting machines. Some allegations that the

Russians had probed some voter registration databases, not to really do anything, but maybe just

to show that they were trying to have some kind of interference. But there's been no proof of

any changes in votes, changes in voter registration, databases or anything else. Same thing in 2020,

there were allegations that Russia and China and Iran tried to do influence operations,

tried to get Americans to fight each other, get us to be more polarized to influence

who might be voted to undermine people's confidence in the integrity of the elections.

But again, nothing that showed actual interference with voting machinery or tabulation.

And yet these conspiracy theories claim that there's something wrong with the voting machines.

This may be why Chelsea Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, was reported in Puerto Rico,

looking at voting machines back. I think it was in January, why perhaps the FBI was seizing

ballots and other records from Fulton County, Georgia, where Trump had claimed in the 2020 election

that there was interference that led to Joe Biden's victory in the state of Georgia.

None of this is, of course, true, and it has been investigated. But it does seem to

potentially serve as a background for protectually claiming foreign interference as a basis

for Trump to try to interfere with how elections are being run.

So tell us more about what's in this document that the Washington Post

wrote about last week. So this document was a document not prepared by anyone in the administration,

but prepared by a group of election deniers, people who have long claimed that there could be

some kind of national security reason for messing with elections. And what this executive order

that was drafted by these activist purports to do is to claim that this threat of foreign

interference would give the president vast powers over elections to change everything from how people

registered a vote, what documents they would need to prove to register a vote, whether they could

register a vote online, it would ban basically all means of registering to vote, except those

that would be in person or by mail, and it would require the production of documentary proof

of citizenship. And let me explain what that is because that's different than voter ID.

So voter ID, you go to the polls, maybe you're going to take out your driver's license or something

like that. This is different. This is an order to register to vote. You would have to provide

evidence that you're a citizen of the United States, which basically consists of either a passport

or your birth certificate or your naturalization certificate. If you've changed your name,

for example, because you got married, you'd also have to provide evidence of your name change.

These are not the kind of documents that people have easy access to. This would be a huge impediment

to people voting. It would essentially require everyone to re-register to vote. It would change.

So you'd have to start from scratch, even if you've voted for decades, you'd still have to prove

your citizenship with those documents. And getting those documents sometimes requires

writing to the city and asking for a copy of it. And paying for it as well.

And paying for it, right? Everything I'm telling you about this, what's in this

draft executive order that these activists have come up with is supposed to be implemented in time

for the 2026 elections. So it's really an impossible task if this is actually what gets produced.

And I'm kind of skeptical that this document would be the executive order. But it does kind of

give us a window into the thinking of these conspiracy theorists. So they changed voter registration.

They would change the requirements for identification at the polling places and posing a national

system for that. They would require states to match the voter registration with federal databases

to try to figure out who's a citizen. We don't have a good database of who is an American citizen.

They would change the rules for how ballots had to be tabulated. They would change the

timetable for the receipt of ballots by mail. They would eliminate most absentee balloting. And then

they would require all lawsuits to be brought in federal court rather than in state courts.

It would be essentially a federal takeover of elections, making registration and voting much

more difficult on a time frame that would be impossible to do in time for the 2026 elections.

Is there anything constitutional about any of this?

We've got to go to the Constitution. The Constitution has a provision. It's an article one of the

Constitution, which is the part that deals with Congress's powers. It's an article one section four.

And it basically says that states can set the time, place and manner for running elections.

Subject to Congress passing laws that override those rules for congressional elections.

So for example, Congress has passed laws that say that when you elect members of Congress,

you have to do it from single member districts. If you've got a state with 10 representatives,

you can't have everyone elect all 10. You have to draw 10 equally size districts.

So Congress has that power. But it's a power to pass laws that regulate how federal elections are

conducted. What is in the Constitution is about states and Congress. There is nothing about the

president. And in fact, there have been a number of lawsuits over Trump's earlier executive order

from back in last August when he tried to mess with that federal form for how people can register

to vote in congressional elections. There have been a number of lawsuits where the courts have said

the president has no role to play in the conduct of federal elections. And so just out of the gate,

the idea that the president could unilaterally do this to an executive order, some kind of royal

edict that changes how our elections are run, that's a nonstarter as far as the Constitution goes.

So if from issues a similar executive order, in order for that to not go into effect,

it would have to go through the courts, which is a slow system. And then it becomes a question of,

is there a stay that's put on that executive order or does it go through and then maybe get

rescinded and I mean, I can imagine such chaos just in the court system.

Well, so we have a little bit of experience with the earlier Trump executive order, which is the one

that was issued in August that among other things would make it harder for people to register to

vote using this federal form for voter registration. It would require people to produce that

documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. And what we know is that

multiple courts have issued preliminary injunctions. So these are orders before the case has been

fully adjudicated that say, in the meantime, while this case is pending, your rules, your executive

order is put on hold. So an executive order is not a law. It's basically the president directing

parts of the federal government to do certain things. And those certain things that Trump tried

to direct different federal officials to do and also to direct states to do, which he has no

power to do with an executive order, these were put on hold pending a full trial. And we've now had

on various aspects of this executive order full trials. And we got one of our first opinions

back in early February from a federal district court in Washington DC that permanently stopped

these things. So let me say then that election deniers want to totally remake the election system.

Let's look at who some of them were because there was also a meeting, a recent meeting that was

convened by Michael Flynn, who was President Trump's first and very brief national security advisor.

And he's been accused of commiserating with Russians, right?

Sure. I mean, there's just there's a whole constellation of people. These were people who

I think got activated in the aftermath of the 2020 election. That was the election that was

conducted during COVID. That's the election that Biden beat Trump. Trump filed 60 something lawsuits

trying to overturn the results. It led to the January 6th insurrection. I'm just trying to bring

listeners back to that time. This is where the conspiracy theories really blossomed. And the people

haven't stopped since then and they've organized and they've claimed that fraud is right for

elections. All of their claims have been debunked. There is no basis. It's important to say this,

I think there is no basis to believe that there is was either foreign or domestic interference

that could have changed the results of the 2020 elections in any state, much less than enough

states to swing the electoral college. These are people who are authoritarian and who are trying

to have the president seize more power. This is about trying to change our elections so that they

will no longer be democratic. And we would no longer have the kind of free and fair elections

that we need in order to continue to have the kind of democracy that's been promised to us,

since the passage of the Constitution. What would it mean to nationalize the elections? And

Trump has said he'd like to do that. He did say that, but he also said that there were 15 places

where we need to take over elections, not clear exactly what he means by that. I think we talked

about this when we discussed my 2012 book, The Voting Wars, that most other advanced democracies

have national nonpartisan election administration. So if you go to Canada, Germany or Australia,

they have a civil service body that runs elections. There's a lot to be said for that. And back in that

book, I advocated for that to try to rationalize our elections so that the voting machinery would be

uniform. We'd have uniform rules. It would be easy to vote and we'd have all kinds of safeguards.

But I've now recanted that because I think American democracy is too weak. What we've seen with the

Trump administration is that Donald Trump is trying to use every power at his disposal

to direct the federal government to do what he wants, regardless of the safeguards that are built

in. And so I think American democracy could not handle federalizing or nationalizing elections,

because it would raise the potential to concentrate power in the hands of a tyrannical president.

What do you think the odds are that President Trump would issue the kind of executive order that

we're talking about? I think there's a good chance that another executive order comes out on voting.

Trump has said on multiple times he's going to do it. He had a post on his truth social

media site that said that we're going to have voter ID in this country whether Congress passes

the Save Act or not. So he's going to do something. But the executive order might be just for show.

He might know as he does with some things that he does that the courts are going to stop him.

But that's just one lever among many that Trump could try to use to interfere with the 2026

elections. Let me talk about some others. One is what we saw in Georgia recently with the FBI coming

in and seizing ballots. Now those ballots were seized for a past election, the 2020 election.

What would happen if the FBI gets some judge to sign a search warrant and tries to seize ballots

in an election that has not been called yet? Then we'd be breaking the chain of custody and it

would be impossible to know if ballots were added or changed or taken out of account. It would

essentially nullify an election. So that's one thing I'm worried about. I'm worried about him.

Can I stop you there? So in an attempt to protect the integrity of the election, they would be

ruining it by confiscating the votes. Yeah, and I think we should take a step back here and

recognize that the greatest threat to free and fair elections in 2026 is interference from the

federal government. And that's an astonishing thing to say when it's been the federal government

if you think back to the Voting Rights Act in 1965, it was a federal government that helped

protect free and fair elections. And now we need to worry about how the federal government might

interfere with state processes for running elections and for tabulating the ballots.

Well, I think another possible way of interfering would be to declare voting machines,

critical infrastructure. I think they've already been declared that and use that as an

opportunity to confiscate voting machines. So well before Trump, when we saw attempted

interference from foreign countries, including Russia, the Department of Homeland Security declared

our voting systems part of critical infrastructure. That was perfectly appropriate to do because

we need to have that protection. And until the second Trump administration, there was a federal

agency called CESA that was working with state and local election officials to assure that

voting machines were not going to be hacked. There was not going to be some kind of interference

with how elections were going to be run. Unfortunately, the Trump administration now has

taken CESA and taken kind of taken it out of the business of protecting elections, leaving state

and local officials on their own. But the idea that the voting system has been declared critical

infrastructure could serve as a pretext for Trump to try to interfere with voting machines or

the tabulation of ballots in the 2026 midterm elections. So what else could President Trump do with

an executive order? Well, he could potentially send federal troops into polling areas when the

President's spokesperson was asked about this. She essentially said there were no plans to do so,

but there was no unequivocal, of course, we would keep the federal troops away from polling places.

Actually, I think that it's really hard to send troops in and that would get some kind of

public reaction. If you're going to try to mess with an election, it's much easier to mess with

it on the back end when votes are being tabulated on the front end when people are voting.

Although I think talking about the potential for troops to be in the streets during election season,

that itself is a way of demobilizing the electorate. I mean, think about this. There are many people

who are on the cusp. More people vote in presidential elections than congressional elections.

Presidential elections get the most public attention. People are deciding, should I stay home,

should I vote? If they think that they might be hassled or there might be problems at the

polling place, they might just stay away. It might not just be Democrats who stay away. It might be

those Trump voters. Trump appeal to a lot of these infrequent voters who don't have a long

history of voting. This may be in some ways very self-defeating all of this talk about

interfering with the elections. It's going to cause some people to not show up at the polling place.

Well, we have to take another short break here. If you're just joining us, my guest is Richard

Hassan. He teaches law and political science at UCLA, where he's the director of the safeguarding

democracy project. He's also the founder of the election law blog. We'll be right back. I'm

Terry Gross, and this is fresh air. This message comes from Wise, the app for international people

using money around the globe. You can send, spend, and receive an up to 40 currencies with only a few

simple taps. Be smart, get wise, download the Wise app today, or visit Wise.com, tease and

seize apply. This message comes from Rinse, who knows that greatness takes time. So does laundry.

So Rinse will take your laundry and hand deliver it to your door, expertly cleaned,

and you can take the time pursuing your passions. Time one spent sorting and waiting,

folding and queuing, now spent challenging and innovating and pushing your way to greatness.

So pick up that Irish flute or those calligraphy pens, or the daunting beef Wellington recipe

card, and leave the laundry to rinse. Rinse, it's time to be great.

This message comes from Double Day Books, publisher of the Frozen River by Ariel Laughan,

a gripping historical novel inspired by the life of 18th century midwife Martha Ballard.

The Frozen River is a perfect read for these long winter nights. It follows Martha as she is

forced to confront truth, silence, and the consequences of a single choice in the wake of a

shocking murder. With vivid storytelling and emotional depth, the Frozen River lingers long

after the snow melts. Available everywhere books and audio books are sold.

Something I don't understand both about the Save app, which has stalled in the Senate

in this talk of executive orders. It's going to be as hard for Republicans to register and vote

as it will be for Democrats. Some people say it'll make it harder because there's more Republicans

in rural areas that would have trouble getting to an official election place where you can

prove your citizenship and therefore register. So what's in it for Republicans? What's in it for

conspiracy theorists to advocate for changes in election law that would make it difficult for

Republicans as well as Democrats? I think that both Republicans and to some extent Democrats

are stuck in a mindset that is probably outdated, which is that if you make voting and registration

harder, it is going to help the Republican Party. You know, 20 years ago, we'd say that the

Republican Party was made up of wider, older, more affluent voters. These are people who tend to

live in the same place who tend to be longtime registrants in the same place in order to vote

and young people, people of color, people who move a lot, poor people, more likely to be Democrats

and therefore they're the ones who are most likely to be caught up in new changes in voter registration

and voting. But times have changed and the coalitions of the parties have changed. It used to be

that in midterm elections, it was Republicans who turned out more because they were the more

affluent college educated white people. Now, a lot of those people have moved over to the Democratic

Party. And so it is not at all clear that if the Save Act passed or if Donald Trump were able to

do some of these new restrictions by executive order, that it would actually ignore to the benefit

of the Republican Party. I think more likely the thinking of those who've actually thought it

through and who've noticed this demographic change is that this would be part and parcel of this

kind of long-term push to claim that there's massive fraud in elections to overturn the results

of democratically conducted elections. This might be the reason, too, why the Justice Department

has sued, and I believe it's 24 states now, to try to collect unredacted voter registration

information to create some kind of massive database which they could then use as a pretext to claim

that there's a lot of fraud in how American elections are conducted.

How much genuine fraud is there really? So fraud is extremely rare. Let's just take the case of

non-citizen voting. In 2016, Donald Trump claimed that there were three million non-citizens who

voted in the 2016 election. That was coincidentally the amount by which Hillary Clinton beat him in

the popular vote. There were investigations all over the country looking for how many non-citizens

actually voted in the election. There weren't three million or 300,000 or 30,000 or 3,000 or 300.

There were about 30 cases of possible non-citizen voting in the United States, a tiny, tiny percentage.

And it's unsurprising about that because if you're a non-citizen and you vote, you're committing a

felony, you could be deported, you could face criminal penalties. You'd have to have so many people

voting in a presidential election to sway it that you know, you'd have this conspiracy of millions

of people voting who are ineligible and no one would know about it. I mean, it's just ludicrous.

Same thing with voter impersonation fraud. Someone goes to the polls claiming to be someone else.

We can count probably on one hand the number of proven cases of impersonation voter fraud in the

last election. I mean, these things are happening on a very small basis. In some small elections,

especially in places where there might be a media desert, not newspapers or others watching to see

what's going on, we have seen some election fraud. We have some examples of that in Patterson,

New Jersey, in a city election, in Bridgeport, Connecticut. There have been places. These are

generally not fraud activities committed by voters, but instead by elected officials and election

officials who are trying to interfere with the elections. And when you compare the number of

genuine fraudulent votes to the number of people who are disenfranchised by recent voting laws,

who comes out ahead? Yeah, well, here we have some good data. So back in, I believe it was the

early 2010s, Kansas passed one of these documentary proof of citizenship laws. And this is again,

is a law that would require you to provide your naturalization certificate, your birth certificate,

your marriage license, things like that. We know that when Kansas tried to put this law in place,

30,000 people had their voter registrations put on hold until a federal court issued a

preliminary injunction saying you can't enforce this law while we have a trial. Of those 30,000

people, more than 99% of them were eligible to vote. And so it has a huge disenfranchising effect.

The case over this documentary proof of citizenship law went to trial in a case called Fish

versus Cobak. This was a case that was defended by Chris Cobak. He's one of the famous elections

in Iars. He was the Secretary of State of Kansas. He's now Kansas Attorney General. He tried to

prove that Nonsense and Voting was a big problem in the elections. He said that the amount of fraud

in the elections was the tip of the iceberg. And when the federal district court judge issued

her ruling and she was, I believe, a George H. W. Bush appointee, she said there is no iceberg.

There is only an icicle and it's made up mostly of administrative error. We know the amount

of non-citizen voting in the United States is trivial compared to the disenfranchising effects

of documentary proof of citizenship laws. Yet that's the very law that the Save Act, which has

passed the House and is pending in the Senate, would impose nationally in the United States.

Getting back to Trump trying to get access to voting roles from states and succeeding in some

instances, Pam Bondy, the Attorney General, tried to make a deal with Minnesota, will pull out

ice in return for you turning over voter roles. What did you make of that when you heard it?

I thought it was outrageous. The idea that you would condition something related to immigration

enforcement, law enforcement on this wish list to get the voting roles, there's no real connection

to it. It struck me as a form of extortion. It had a kind of mafia feel to it. If you don't give

us what we want, we're going to continue to hurt you and your citizens. I just think the two

issues have no connection to one another and the idea that she would bring it up as a potential

quid pro quo is just not worthy of the Department of Justice or what we would expect in the Attorney

General. Let me reintroduce you. If you're just joining us, my guest is Richard Hassan. He teaches law

and political science at UCLA where he also directs the safeguarding democracy project and he's the

founder of the popular election law blog. We'll be right back. This is Fresh Air.

This message comes from LinkedIn, who knows the wrong hire can cause small businesses more than

just time. That's why LinkedIn hiring pro goes beyond resumes. Using insights you can't find

anywhere else to give you a short list of candidates who truly fit. So you can hire right

the first time. Post your first job and get a hundred dollars off at LinkedIn.com slash NPR

author terms and conditions apply. This message comes from Kachava. That wellness goal you set at

the start of the year. It's not too late to stick with it and make your future self proud,

especially with the all-in-one nutrition shake from Kachava. With 25 grams of protein,

six grams of fiber, greens, adaptogens, and more, no fillers, no nonsense, just the highest

quality ingredients. Stick with your wellness goals. Go to Kachava.com and use code NPR for 15

percent off. That's k-a-c-h-a-v-a.com code NPR. This message comes from LinkedIn, who knows every

higher matters when you're running a small business. That's why LinkedIn hiring pro uses real-time

professional data and insights, not just resumes, to find you the best candidates. In fact,

businesses hiring with LinkedIn are 24 percent less likely to reopen a role within a year,

compared to the leading competitor. Hire right the first time. Post your first job and get a hundred

dollars off at LinkedIn.com slash NPR author terms and conditions apply. I want to play a clip of

something that President Trump said during his State of the Union address about how he'd like to

change how elections are administered. I'm asking you to approve the Save America Act.

You stop illegal aliens and others. We're uncommitted persons from voting in our sacred American

elections that cheating is rampant in our elections. It's rampant. It's very simple. All voters

must show voter ID.

All voters must show proof of citizenship in order to go.

And no more criminal mail-in ballots except for illness, disability, military, or travel. None.

And this should be an easy one. And by the way, it's polling at 89 percent, including Democrats,

89 percent. Let's just go through what Trump said in the State of the Union address. He said that,

89 percent of American people are for voter ID. That doesn't mean they're for the form of voter

ID that Trump wants, which is a much more extreme, hard-to-get form of voter ID.

Well, so there's two things. One is what you have to show at the polling place. And what the Save

America Act would do is allow for a very narrow set of IDs that would be allowed. So, for example,

it would exclude student identifications, which of course is something that many students

who are in college who don't drive. That would be their primary form of identification.

But also, both the Save Act and the Save America Act would impose documentary proof of citizenship

requirements to register to vote. So that's different than voter ID. And there's not public support

for that. There's public support for general voter identification requirements. But not for

show me your papers. You can't register to vote unless you could produce an original of your

birth certificate or your naturalization certificate and your marriage license if you've changed your

name or your passport. Passport, I believe, still costs $180 to get. So, this, you know, kind of have

a skewing effect towards those who are wealthier who could produce these kinds of documents.

There's not public support for that. There's another part of the Voting Rights Act,

one of the civil rights bills that's being contested in court now. Can you talk about that?

So, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had an important amendment that was made in 1982.

It's commonly referred to as Section 2. And it's the part of the Voting Rights Act that requires

in the context of redistricting the drawing of districts where minority voters Black, Latino,

Native American, Asian American, voters get a chance to elect a candidate of their choice.

It has led to great growth in the number of minority preferred candidates. And if you look at

Congress now of the 435 members, over 100 of those members identify with one of these communities.

There's a case in front of the Supreme Court now called Louisiana versus Kale.

It's a complicated case. It was first argued last March where the Voting Rights Act

itself was not really an issue. Instead, the question was whether it violated the Constitution

for the state of Louisiana to take race too much into account in how they drew district lines.

We had expected an opinion in the Kale case at the end of the Supreme Court's term last June.

Instead of an opinion, we got an order from the Supreme Court saying the case was going to be

re-argued. In the middle of the summer on a late Friday afternoon and August, the Supreme Court said,

here's what we want you to brief in our re-argument, and it was about whether Section 2 of the

Voting Rights Act might now be unconstitutional. It's an issue where the Supreme Court has repeatedly

upheld the Constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act, and now the Voting Rights Act itself

is potentially going to be either struck down, or I think much more likely, Section 2 is going to

be reinterpreted to be toothless. It will still be along the books, but it will be almost impossible

for minority voters to be able to elect their canyons of choice through Section 2 of the Voting Rights

Act. And what impact do you think this would have? I think this would be a terrible setback for

American democracy. It would mean that not just Congress, but our state legislatures, our city

councils, our county boards, our school districts would be much wider, much more homogeneous.

We would have much less representation. And when it comes to Congress, where there's concern that

Republican states might redraw congressional districts to get rid of these districts that have

been required by Section 2 and create more white Republican districts, I think there will also be

pressure in Democratic states to eliminate these districts, spread out those reliable Democratic

voters into more districts to create more Democratic districts that will also elect the first

choice of white voters rather than the vote choices of candidates of color. And so while the

partisan implications are not completely clear and might benefit Republicans to some extent,

it's going to be a real loss for fair representation in the United States.

You would like to see our Constitution updated, but you don't specifically like to see a new

constitutional amendment regarding voting. What would you like it to say?

Well, let's talk about the fact that the US Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to vote.

It simply says that if you're going to hold an election, you can't discriminate on the basis of

race or gender or age between 18 and 21. We don't have an affirmative right to vote like most other

modern constitutions have. Instead, the Constitution says you only have the right to vote in the House

and the qualifications to vote are those set by states. So there's no federal constitutional

guarantee of anyone to be able to vote. And if we go back to the 2000 election to Bush versus

Gore, the case in the Supreme Court that ended the dispute over who got Florida's electoral college

in that case, the Supreme Court said that state legislatures get to choose the manner for choosing

presidential electors and even though states have given that ability to vote to voters to vote for

president, states could take it back in future elections and have state legislatures directly

appoint electors. So all of this is to say that we don't have strong voting rights protections like

most other advanced democracies do in their constitutions. So if you look at the Constitution of

Germany or Canada, it'll say if you're a citizen and you're at least 18, you get the right to vote.

If we had that and we had other things that protect the equal waiting of votes and fair

distribution of political power, we'd be much stronger as a democracy and it'd be much harder

for someone like a Donald Trump to mess with and interfere with the conduct of elections.

Thank you so much for your time today and for explaining some really complicated things that

are going on in our election system right now. Well, I'm really glad that we're having this chance

to have this conversation because now is the time for people to pay attention and be vigilant. We

can't wait until November. Rick Hassan is the founder of the election law blog and he's a professor

of law and political science as well as director of the safeguarding democracy project at the UCLA

School of Law. His latest book is called a real right to vote. We recorded our interview yesterday

morning, later in the day, the Supreme Court announced an emergency decision pertaining to

redistricting and the midterms. A lawsuit filed by four New Yorkers challenged the map of a district

redrawn in 2024 by Republicans to include parts of both Staten Island and Brooklyn. The lawsuit

argued that the redrawn map was unconstitutional under New York State's Constitution because it

diluted the power of black and Latino voters. A lower court ruled in favor of the Democrats.

The Republican representative from that district asked the Supreme Court to pause that ruling

until the map could be redrawn. The Supreme Court agreed and overturned the lower court's stay.

That decision will likely help Republicans keep that congressional seat in the midterms.

Rick Hassan wrote on his blog that for him, the headline was Justice Alito's concurrence,

which says race-conscious redistricting is odious. Hassan is concerned because section 2 of the

Voting Rights Act, which, as we discussed, is being challenged in another case before the Supreme

Court prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race.

Hassan says yesterday's decision is, quote, bad news, not just for section 2 of the Voting Rights

Act, but for more voting protection in the States. Unquote. After we take a short break,

John Powers will review a new Japanese film about a gangster son who dreams of being a star in

Kabuki theater. This is fresh air. This message comes from Mint's mobile. If you're tired of

spending hundreds on big wireless bills, bogus fees, and free perks, Mint Mobile is for you.

Shop plans at MintMobile.com slash switch. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

This message comes from LinkedIn. Who knows an empty seat can cost small businesses more than just

space. That's why LinkedIn Hiring Pro makes it easy to fill that seat with the right candidate,

Streamlining everything from posting jobs to short-listing talent. Nearly 60% of businesses

find someone to interview in the first week. Hire right the first time. Post your first job and

get $100 off at LinkedIn.com slash NPR offer. Terms and conditions apply.

This message comes from Intuit TurboTax. With TurboTax expert full service,

match with a dedicated expert who will do your taxes for you from start to finish,

getting you every dollar you deserve. It's that easy. Visit TurboTax.com to match with an expert today.

The new Japanese film Coco Ho said box office records in its home country. It's now playing

in theaters here. The movie, which received an Oscar nomination for Here and Makeup,

tells the story of a gangster son who dreams of being a star in Japan's famously rigorous

Kabuki theater. Our critic at large don't power says Coco Ho carried him away into a fascinating

subculture whose demands are at once familiar and unfamiliar. Like millions of people around the

world, I was hooked by the figure skating competition at the Olympics. It had thralled me with

this extraordinary display of prowess and grace, but also with its fragility, its constant sense

of precariousness. Years of hard work could go poof at any second. As I watched, I kept thinking

of the gorgeous new movie Coco Ho. I'll explain why later. But first, let me say that Coco Ho

is set in and around the world of Kabuki, the 400-year-old theatrical form that lies near the heart

of Japanese culture. Spanning half a century and running nearly three hours, this quiet epic is

the top-grossing Japanese live-action film of all time. You can see why. It's bursting with emotion

and beauty. It's costumes, hair, and makeup are dazzling. Lee Sang-il's film tells a compelling

story about friendship, the weight of history, the quest for perfection, and the torturous road to

becoming a living national treasure, which is what the word Coco Ho means. When we first meet the hero

Kikuho, he's 14 and playing a female role in an excerpt from a famous Kabuki play.

Men play all the roles in Kabuki. His performance is seen by a Kabuki star Hanai,

that's Ken Watanabe, who's impressed by his talent. When Kikuho's Yakuza father is murdered by

a rival gang, Hanai takes him in as a protege, teaching him to become an Onagata, a male actor who

plays female roles. There is one snag. Hanai already has a son of the same age, Shunsuke,

who's slated to be his artistic heir, and in the Kabuki world, artistic status passes from

generation to generation. Naturally, we expect Kikuho and Shunsuke to become rivals, and in a way they

do. Yet as they share the sometimes cruel ordeal of their training, they become friends and acting

partners. Each sees how the other is trapped. Despite his fanatical dedication, Kikuho is considered

a low-born outsider, complete with a Yakuza tattoo on his back, that the hide-bound Kabuki culture

doesn't want to accept. In contrast, Shunsuke is expected to become a luminary like his dad.

Even though at some gut level, he doesn't even like Kabuki. Born into a role he doesn't want,

he'd rather party than practice. We follow their entwined fates over the decades, a sometimes

melodramatic dance of triumph and humiliation, complete with sexual rivalries and ignored children.

Played with riveting dry ice intensity by Yoshizawa Ryo, Kikuho becomes positively

foused in his desire for greatness. While the less gifted but far more lightable Shunsuke,

that's the very enjoyable Yokohama Rusei, labors to escape his destiny.

With their friendship providing the dramatic pull, Kikuho tackles grand themes. It paints a

portrait of a late 20th century Japan still suffocating beneath musty ideas about birth and cultural

inheritance. And in Kikuho's struggle to become Japan's greatest Kabuki actor, we feel the

chile isolation of devoting yourself to an art form so demanding that leaves little room for

ordinary human connection. We also have the pleasure of learning about our ravishing art alien

to most of us. Normally when we hear the phrase Kabuki theater in America, often in the political

realm, it's used derisively to suggest something ritualized, empty, pro forma. But watching

Kikuho, you see how shallow this notion is. The Kabuki scenes were shown are thrillingly

performed by Yoshizawa and Yokohama, who each spent a year and a half training to do the film.

They make us feel the primal power in Kabuki's blend of dance, music, and acting,

as it tells tales of love suicides, or women who reveal themselves to be serpents.

Just as Olympic skaters must perform certain compulsory leaps and loops, and are judged on how

well they do them, so Kabuki actors have certain gestures they must perform in a role,

and they are expected to do them perfectly. Yet one can be technically flawless and still be

middling. For a skater, the true measure of greatness is the expressive artistry of the free

skate. For a Kabuki actor like Kikuho, what makes you a national treasure isn't merely doing

every dance and gesture to perfection, but imbuing them with a huge, almost mythic emotion.

Kukuho captures how wondrous that can be, and the pain required to get there.

John Powers reviewed Kukuho, it's now playing in theaters. Tomorrow on Fresh Air, Morgan

Neville talks to us about his new documentary, Man on the Run, about Paul McCartney after the

breakup of The Beatles. Neville's made documentaries about Fred Rogers, Ferrell, and Orson Wells.

He won an Oscar and a Grammy for his film Twenty Feet from Stardom about backup singers.

I hope you'll join us. To keep up with what's on the show and get highlights of our interviews,

follow us on Instagram at NPR Fresh Air. Fresh Air is executive producer Sam

Brigger. Our technical director and engineer is Audrey Bentham. Our interviews and reviews

are produced and edited by Phyllis Myers and Maribel Denato, Lauren Crenzel, Theresa Madden,

Monique Nazareth, Thaya Challener, Susan Nykundi, Anna Bauman, and Nico Gonzalez Whistler.

Our digital media producer is Molly Sevy-Nesper. Roberta Shorok directs the show.

Our co-host is Tanya Mosley. I'm Terry Gross.

This message comes from Alexa Plus. Say hello to Alexa Plus and see how Alexa can do more for you.

Craving your favorite restaurant? Alexa's on it.

Three with prime on your Amazon devices. Learn more at Amazon.com slash Alexa Plus.

This message comes from eBay. The worst part about loving cars might just be buying them

and all the parts. From Toyotas to Aston Martin's, eBay has thousands of cars and the largest

online selection of vehicle parts and accessories. eBay, things, people, love.

Support for this podcast and the following message come from Alexa Plus.

Say hello to Alexa Plus and see how the experience is tailored to you.

Planning a vacation? Ask Alexa to recommend a trip.

Use Alexa Plus to find the name of that song you love. Discover new favorite shows or

recipes and so much more. Ask Alexa Plus anything.

And now Alexa Plus is free with prime on your Amazon devices like Echo and Fire TV.

Get started at amazon.com slash Alexa Plus.