In this episode, Jenny Beth Martin is joined by J. Christian Adams, President of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, to expose how tens of thousands of deceased individuals remain on voter rolls—some for decades—and why courts are letting it happen. Adams also reveals how secret ballots are no longer truly secret in parts of Texas, shares shocking voter intimidation cases involving Trump supporters, and explains how state officials are dodging accountability. This eye-opening conversation underscores the urgent need for election integrity reform and real transparency in our voting systems.
In this episode, Jenny Beth Martin is joined by J. Christian Adams, President of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, to expose how tens of thousands of deceased individuals remain on voter rolls—some for decades—and why courts are letting it happen. Adams also reveals how secret ballots are no longer truly secret in parts of Texas, shares shocking voter intimidation cases involving Trump supporters, and explains how state officials are dodging accountability. This eye-opening conversation underscores the urgent need for election integrity reform and real transparency in our voting systems.
Twitter/X: @ElectionLawCtr | @PILFoundation | @jennybethm
Website: https://publicinterestlegal.org/
Christian Adams (00:00):
So we've been involved in Michigan. We found 27,000 dead people on the rolls. They died in the nineties. They died when Bill Clinton was president.
Narrator (00:09):
Keeping our Republic is on the line and it requires Patriots with great passion, dedication, and eternal vigilance to preserve our freedoms. Jenny Beth Martin is the co-founder of Tea Party Patriots. She's an author, a filmmaker, and one of time magazine's most influential people in the world. But the title she's most proud of is Mom To Her Boy, girl Twins. She has been at the forefront fighting to protect America's core principles for more than a decade. Welcome to the Jenny Beth Show.
Jenny Beth Martin (00:41):
Steve. We are joined by a good friend of mine who I've worked with for many years in the election integrity space long before the year 2020. Jay Christian Adams, he's the president and General counsel for the Public Interest Legal Foundation. Christian, thanks so much for joining us today.
Christian Adams (00:57):
It's great to be here. Jenny Beth.
Jenny Beth Martin (01:00):
So tell everyone a little bit about your background and then we'll get into some of the work that you're doing with your organization.
Christian Adams (01:08):
So I'm an election lawyer. I used to be at the Justice Department many years ago in the voting section. I brought a bunch of cases there, like the new Black Panther voter intimidation case. I left the Justice Department. There's a whole book about that. But now, and for the last 15 years I've been working with election integrity, public Interest, legal Foundation, the president. All we are is a nonprofit law firm dedicated to election integrity.
Jenny Beth Martin (01:34):
What are some of the cases that you have been successful in your history with Public Interest Legal Foundation?
Christian Adams (01:41):
Oh, goodness. Successful. We rewrote redistricting law in the Fifth Circuit, which is Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi. We want a case in the Fifth Circuit case Court of Appeals in Banc that essentially said the left can't use racial coalitions to draw congressional seats. We've done transparency litigation around the country so you can get records. We've struck down Delaware's vote by mail and early voting is unconstitutional. Struck down an entire state voting scheme of Virginia. We've stopped them from violating the law on a statewide level by accepting ballots late after the election. Those are just a few of 'em. There's a lot of cases out there. We've been fighting a long time.
Jenny Beth Martin (02:24):
That's really amazing. So right now, some of the things that you're working on are very interesting and kind of alarming. The one I think that is the most alarming is that you're defending people right now who receive death threats for supporting Donald Trump for president.
Christian Adams (02:41):
Yeah. It's a federal court case in Philadelphia. Right before the election, Jenny Beth, this is America. Remember, these people got death threats in the mail. They were actually lick stamp type letters and it said, we noticed you support Donald Trump. You better be careful. We're going to come the dead of a cold night. Your cat's going to get shot, your family's going to endanger. You're in the database, and much more can happen to you. These are actually letters that our clients got in the mail. So we filed a federal court case, voter Intimidation Clan Act. We filed a Ku Klux Klan Act case about these death threats. And why wasn't the postal inspectors making arrests? By now? I mean maybe Inspector OT works there, but there should be people in jail now for sending these death threats
Jenny Beth Martin (03:31):
And do you have any idea why it's taking so long?
Christian Adams (03:35):
No, but I have good news on that. The judge, the federal judge in the case, allowed us to do third party discovery. We asked for it, and they granted our ability to file discovery against the US Postal inspectors, the Pennsylvania State Police, the local Yoel police who dropped the ball here, all the people who should have arrested somebody by now, we're going to get to get their records through third party discovery and either find out why they dropped the ball or find out what they're doing.
Jenny Beth Martin (04:05):
Well, that's really good. It doesn't matter who you support for president, you should be able to do so freely and without the threat of physical harm. It's just alarming to me that that happened. Our side of the aisle should not be issuing death threats if we don't. Like you, people vote for the other side of the aisle, shouldn't be issuing death threats to us if they don't like it. I mean, this is America. You're right.
Christian Adams (04:30):
Yeah. It's central to a civil society. A lot of places around the world, this is common a lot of other times in history. This is common, but America is an ideal. It's a place where you can speak your mind freely and vote without threat of a guy with a 30 odd six. And don't forget Jenny Beth, they had to have cased out their houses to see the signs. They picked people who they knew had signs in their yards before they sent the death threats.
Jenny Beth Martin (05:01):
I am very glad that you're getting discovery on this because it is alarming to me that this is going on. And Christian, I think something very strange is happening in the state of Pennsylvania. Anyway, we had two people who we had President Trump being attempted his attempted assassination. Someone from the same city also was plotting something against President Trump. We have the governor's mansion there, a Democrat where it got burned, and now we're learning about these death threats in Philadelphia. It seems to me as a person who supports grassroots and has been doing so for a decade and a half, something is amiss underfoot in the state of Pennsylvania, and they need to get to the root of what's going on that emboldens people to make them think they can take such drastic dangerous action.
Christian Adams (05:55):
The governor, as you mentioned, had his house torched, and this is the same governor who's been decrying political violence and for good reason. This is not a country that has a, we think we're better than political violence. Well, the governor needs to jump in here too. I mean, there is a wholesale lack of response to Trump supporters getting death threats that really, we all know what would happen if the shoe was on their foot. We all know, and rightly so, if Harris voters were getting death threats, the institution should spring to action and protect us.
Jenny Beth Martin (06:36):
That's right. So I'm glad that you are working to help defend these people, and I hope that we do get to the bottom of it, and the people who sent these letters are held accountable and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Now, Christian, it brings us to another point, and that is you should be able to have signs and tell who you're supporting if you want to do so. But also in America, normally we have secret ballots, don't we?
Christian Adams (07:04):
Oh boy. Yeah. Another bedrock principle, right? Like, Hey, you shouldn't be killed for you vote for, and no one should know who you vote for. And unfortunately that's not always the case.
Jenny Beth Martin (07:15):
Now, why is it important to have secret ballots before we go into where it's not happening?
Christian Adams (07:22):
Yeah, well, freedom is the first reason. In other words, you actually get to vote for who you want. And a long time ago, a hundred years or so, some states didn't have secret ballots. It was called the Australian ballot because the idea of a secret ballot came from Australia and states across the country implemented the secret ballot to get rid of corruption, to get rid of intimidation. And it was like in the reforms of the 1870s, 1880s, 1890s, and it became part of American culture. You have a secret ballot. Well, unfortunately, because a lot of states, including Texas, went to early voting where they have voting centers where you can vote no matter where you live in the county, and they'll produce your ballot for you. So you get the right dog catcher race, those ballots are no longer secret. We can look up how people voted, who voted in early voting sites because of the system that they use. I know this sounds a little crazy and kooky, but it also is true. And we have the governor's ballot. We have the first ladies ballot, we have ballots of state court judges. We have ballots of 30,000 people just in Harris County, which is Houston who voted early voting in the election.
Jenny Beth Martin (08:40):
And do they make these ballots available for public information or is there a problem with the software that made it possible to see the ballots?
Christian Adams (08:51):
It's both. Remember, they have to generate the ballot at an early voting site to match your part of the county that you live in. And so that creates a whole electronic sculpture, right? They're molding the ballot. So it's your ballot. And when that happens, it's leaving digital fingerprints as to who you are that go back to the original voter file. But it's also like a game of Sudoku. That's how we have the governor's ballot. He was the only person that voted in that precinct in Austin at a certain time on a certain day, he had to sign in. And then when you look at the ballots because of the disclosure part, it's easy to match up which ballot is Governor Abbott's. And the same is true across the state of Texas. It's not just Governor Abbott, it's our plaintiffs, our clients who are suffering, some of whom said they're afraid to vote because their ballot is going to be outed. And you can think of a thousand ways this can be abused by the left, in particular, college admission, government jobs, all sorts of things by figuring out how people voted.
Jenny Beth Martin (09:59):
Well, you could sell your vote that way and have a receipt to show that you sold it or not. I mean, they're all sorts of problems from it. You could lose your job because somebody knows how you voted and they don't like how you voted, or they could tell you you must vote a certain way in order to keep your job mean. And it seems farfetched. These are hypothetical scenarios, but the reason we have a secret ballot is because that very kind of corruption and coercion was going on to begin with. Maybe not exactly the same, but because it was in the 18 hundreds. But in it's a similar underlying principle.
Christian Adams (10:42):
You were exactly right, Jenny Beth. It is such a bedrock component of American political culture. And look, I'll tell you, Harris County, Texas has responded to our lawsuit and said, there's no such thing as a right to a secret ballot. That's their defense. I'm serious. They say that it's not in the constitution. And you know what? That's a tough argument We're making that it actually is part of the First Amendment to have your political association be private. And if we lose this case, it's up to the states apparently to fix the problem. But Texas knows there's a problem. Look, they admitted, Texas admitted that this is an issue by instructing their county clerks not to disclose certain information that Texas law requires 'em to disclose. That allows you to do the Sudoku puzzle to figure out the ballots so they know this is not some farfetched Looney tunes situation. It's actually happening.
Jenny Beth Martin (11:38):
We know that the Supreme Court has ruled that you have the right to association without disclosing who you've associated with. That happened back before man landed on the moon. And that's what protects 5 0 1 and 5 0 1 3 organizations. And it happened with the NAACP and the state of Alabama, if I remember that properly. Correct.
Christian Adams (11:59):
Yeah. I'm so glad to hear that you nailed it. I mean that is it the Naac versus Alabama case? You exactly are on target. And we had a case, I think Tea Party Patriots may have even signed letters and briefs on this, the case out of California just a few years ago where California is demanding all of our unredacted Schedule Bs. And we were saying, no, no, that's political privacy. So there's a history in this country of protecting private political action,
Jenny Beth Martin (12:31):
And the very basic private political action is when you go and cast your vote, there are a lot of people who never want anyone to know how they vote. You and I are probably a lot different. I know I'm a lot different with that. I have no problem telling people who I'm voting for, but just because I'm okay with it doesn't mean that say my mom would be okay with it or my next door neighbor would be okay with it. And they have the right to keep that private. If they so choose, they still get to vote and they should not be forced to disclose it and that their vote should not be used against them as they want to make a living and live their life in this country.
Christian Adams (13:09):
So you're a warrior in the space. So people you don't really care if they know how you voted. I will tell you, I will always vote no on a bond increase in Fairfax County, Virginia, right? I am always going to vote. No, it never gets a yes for me. That's how I voted. But a lot of people don't want you to know that they want to vote in secret because they're not political warriors. They are just regular people who love American traditions like the secret ballot.
Jenny Beth Martin (13:37):
So this brings us to another regarding the secret ballot. So sticking with it, it brings us to another situation. There are a lot of people right now who are saying, well, I want to see my ballot online when I go cast my vote, I want to have a receipt so I can go and see my own ballot. And they think that that will help make the election process more secure. So what's happening in Houston, they're not supposed to be able to see their actual own ballot, I don't think. But the point is that a lot of people in the election integrity space are arguing for that. And you and I would contend that the secret ballot is more important than that level of transparency when it attaches a ballot back to the person. I'm not saying that the people who are arguing for it are bad people. They care very much about election integrity. They just maybe haven't understood the kind of persecution that can happen because of political beliefs in association that you and I have encountered.
Christian Adams (14:42):
I sure hope that they're getting a printout of their ballot, that they can look at it, that they can see that their ballot was who they voted for. I mean, it should happen in the polling area. I confess, I don't know exactly what happens in Houston on that score, but it's very important that the system of elections lets the voter see who they voted for. But here's the scary thing, and I think you and I may have encountered this discussion somewhere recently in more detail. Is the vote the circle next to the name, or is it the barcode? Right, the QR code that has the vote, it ought to be the circle next to the name, but I'm afraid it might be the QR code. So even if you do get to look up the ballot, whether or not the QR code is the same as what you filled in is the question. And so ballot secrecy is super important because the left is diabolical in their ways that they'll figure out how to abuse this if they ever figure out they could abuse it.
Jenny Beth Martin (15:45):
And speaking of that, QR code matching or not matching the circle that you fill in, we know for certain in Georgia in the year 2020, not 24, but 22, that in the primary election in DeKalb County, Georgia, there was an error with the QR code not matching. We know that there was an error because a lady who was on the ballot said, in my own home precinct, nobody voted for me, and I know I voted for myself, so I should have had at least one vote. And her husband voted for her, so she thought she should have had two. It's possible he lied. So maybe she only had one, but there was zero in her own precinct, and they went and did a bunch of recalibrating. And in Georgia right now, as we film this, and back then in 2022, what was being counted was the barcode, the QR code, and not the circle that is printed out on the ballot because you touch touch and then you have a printout of your ballot not circling in with a pencil.
Jenny Beth Martin (16:59):
So as it turned out, there was something wrong with the way. There was somebody who dropped off the ballot and that person was no longer appearing on the ballot at all, but there was a mystique made, so it was still in the QR code. So when people went to vote, they accidentally, they were voting for the second person down the name of the lady who ultimately won. But it showed up with a QR code as a different person, and it was just very, very messed up. I saw those QR codes, I saw the printout of the ballot, and then the readout of the QR code, which looks different, and they weren't matching. It proved the point that those don't always match. So just keeping it as basic as you possibly can helps prevent some of the kind of problems that computer systems will cover up and make very difficult to uncover.
Christian Adams (17:56):
And that's all the more reason why it's probably better not to have QR codes on ballots. Right? The actual vote ought to be the circle you fill in ought to be what governs everything, not what some computer generates to tell the other computer what to do. Right? Let's get the computers out of the process and have it be what actually the human being says.
Jenny Beth Martin (18:18):
That's right. Okay. So let's shift topics just a little bit from the secret ballot and go to what happened recently regarding list maintenance in a case that you've been involved in. Then we can go into questions about that specifically.
Christian Adams (18:36):
Yeah, this is the depressing part of the show. So we've been involved in Michigan. We found 27,000 dead people on the roll who had been on the active rolls for sometimes 20 years after they died. So Jocelyn Benson was dropping the ball in cleaning voter rolls there. So we filed a lawsuit under the National Voter Registration Act, some people note as motor voter, and it requires election officials to do reasonable list maintenance, to have a reasonable program that removes dead people from the rolls. And we thought, Hey, 27,000 people, many decades, the Michigan State auditor said, there's a problem here. You're not cleaning the voter rolls. All sorts of problems we thought would violate the law, and it's a shame. But the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appeals Court, that is Ohio, Michigan, I think Kentucky, Tennessee, ruled that if you have a program, doesn't matter how good it is, if you have a program, you're satisfying federal law. And it essentially repeals the n VRAs list maintenance provision in the sixth circuit, and it's a disaster. We spent a lot of time and money fighting this case, and we're going to do more. I think the United States will be on our side shortly, but it is an example of how no matter your best intentions in Congress, judges get the last say, and that's an issue.
Jenny Beth Martin (20:03):
What is the latest with the case and why do you have to do more?
Christian Adams (20:08):
So a panel in the sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, a made up, interestingly enough of everybody from Michigan three judge panel of federal judges on appeal held that Michigan's fine. It's hunky dory. It doesn't matter how bad their voter rolls are. All that matters is if they have a program to address it. We argued the proof ought to be in the pudding. They argued if they have a program, we're good enough and they won. And this has implications across the country. Everybody concerned about dirty voter rolls, it will impact those concerns because there isn't much you can do about it. If the federal courts have said dirty voter rolls are not a problem as far as the federal law goes,
Jenny Beth Martin (20:57):
That's just crazy. So they're saying that even though there are people who may be dead on the rolls or that for certain have died and have been on the rolls for decades after they are deceased, after they have died, that it doesn't matter just as long as they checked a box somewhere. That's good enough.
Christian Adams (21:17):
Yeah, we went to the graveyards and we took photos of the gravestones of the people who've been on the rolls for 20 years. They died in the nineties. They died when Bill Clinton was president. And we put that in the record. Look at all these numbers. We talked to the family members who keep getting their mail, their political mail, no less their voter registration information, and they've been dead for 15 years. We talked to them and how upset they were. We produced a pile of evidence in this case, but the courts ruled all the matters is whether state officials have a program in place, and that's a really bad situation.
Jenny Beth Martin (21:57):
How did they come up with this decision, Christian? And when did this happen? It happened fairly recently, right?
Christian Adams (22:02):
Yeah, the decision was just like last week and last time I saw you, Jenny Beth, I said, there's going to be a decision here and it's going to be bad. We drew a very hostile panel. Remember in federal court there's about 16 judges on every federal appeals court. We only get three of 'em. There's a panel. And ours was assigned two natives of Detroiters and one other Michigander. And we just got a panel that said, we agree with Jocelyn Benson that if you have a program that's all that matters and it's not how good you do at your program. And look, everybody who cares about election integrity, and I know they're out there and a lot of people who are working in the trenches and the vineyards, this case kind of guts it. It's like no matter what happens, you can't hold an official accountable to remove dead voters. And look, we're going to appeal to go in bonk. We're going to try to get the whole sixth circuit and we'll see how many briefs come in to help us. I know the United States is probably interested. I know some other groups are interested, but look, Congress is going to have to address this if this case doesn't get reversed, because otherwise there's no list maintenance.
Jenny Beth Martin (23:13):
It is just, this is a shocking decision. How does it even make, it doesn't even make sense. What are they going to allow George Washington or Thomas Jefferson to say on the rules? I mean, it's a famous person who has died and died a long time ago, and there's still not even cleaning it up. It's just crazy.
Christian Adams (23:34):
And I got to tell you, there's an 11 circuit case, the 11 circuits based in Atlanta, but it covers Florida and Georgia and Alabama that sort of said the same thing. It wasn't exactly the same. So we thought, let's go to a different better circuit where you have total sloppiness on the voter rolls like Michigan to get a better decision the other way. And so far it's been bad news and that's unfortunate for our country.
Jenny Beth Martin (24:03):
Just don't, it just boggles my mind. So what is wrong with the NVRA, the National Voting Rights Act that is making them say this decision is okay,
Christian Adams (24:16):
It's the word reasonable. Jenny Beth Reasonable. The law says that a state must have a reasonable plan in place to remove deceased voters from the roles. Now, you and I, if we got together, you and I probably have a very similar view of what reasonable is, right? It's like, Hey, you've been given a list of 50,000 people that are dead on your roll, and some of them have been dead since the nineties. Hey, your state auditor says you're screwing this up. Whole bunch of things are evidence that it's not reasonable. When you go to some people like@moveon.org or something or the Brennan Center for Injustice, they're going to come up with a totally different version of what's reasonable. That's the country we live in where you and I agree that common sense list maintenance ought to happen when you have 50,000 deads. That's a problem. The people at the Brennan Center don't think so, and that's just the world we live in with different views of the world.
Jenny Beth Martin (25:12):
So could the Brennan Center turn around and sue a estate that is doing a good job or fairly good job with list maintenance and say that it's superseding what NVRA says and use this kind of ruling against the state to make them be more lax?
Christian Adams (25:31):
Yeah, for sure. I mean, that's exactly right. That, and the way this shows up is when a state tries to keep the roles even cleaner than the safe harbors and the motor voter allow. The Virginia Case was a little bit like that. There were some differences, but sent the non-citizen registration case from last year where I think it was LULAC sued Virginia and said, Hey, you can't remove these people. So absolutely, there's been cases where the left uses the law to stop voterless maintenance.
Jenny Beth Martin (26:04):
So what can be done to fix this?
Christian Adams (26:08):
Yeah, great question. Look, first of all, what can be done is we're going to file an in banc appeal. We're going to try to stay on this case and get a reversal from the banc, but that's not always easy. Congress could define what reasonable is and say, look, states need to use X, Y, and Z. States need to take information from people when they get it that someone's dead and get 'em off the rolls. States need to not use outdated databases. There's a lot of standards that could be put in place that they aren't using in Michigan, I can promise you.
Jenny Beth Martin (26:49):
And so you're going to try to get the decision reversed, and then you may have to keep fighting even beyond that if it doesn't go. I mean, this is not a decision that can stand.
Christian Adams (27:01):
It's a drag. I mean, we've been pouring a lot of time and money into this for years. This case goes back five years ago or more when we actually six, where we went to Michigan and said, Hey, you got a problem. We want to help you fix it. And they won't even return our phone calls. They wanted nothing to do with list maintenance. They wouldn't meet with us, they wouldn't take our lists. They were just jerks, frankly. And I hate to say that, but they were, and they ignored it, and they wanted nothing to do with list maintenance. And now they get to dance a victory dance. So welcome to Jocelyn Benson. Really, she is running for US Senate, the Secretary of State of Michigan. This is a woman who should care about this stuff, not treat it like it's is a nuisance. So it really is going to make people aware of what kind of shop she's been running in Lansing when she runs for US Senate.
Jenny Beth Martin (28:00):
Okay. And then are there any other cases that you're working on that you think people would be interested in knowing about?
Christian Adams (28:06):
Well, there's tons, Jenny Beth, but I got to share just one out of Oregon. That's kind of funny. Well, at least it's funny to me. So we sued Oregon because they were taking information from Eric, the electronic registration information center, and they were actually, Eric was telling them that somebody was dead, like Jenny Beth Martin died, take her off the voter rolls. So Oregon was taking people who are alive off the voter rolls and then shredding all of the records. And there's a 22 month federal obligation, 22 months under federal law to keep records Oregon. It was like take the money and run. It was like delete them from the act of voter files by mistake and then shred everything. So we sued Oregon for violating federal law for using the Eric records this way, and now they have agreed in a consent decree or a written agreement to actually follow Federal law and preserve records. They weren't doing it before. It's a small little case, but it shows you how crazy things get
Jenny Beth Martin (29:07):
And you kind of just go from when it's streamed to another. But between seats, there are things that they could do that just seem like such common sense, things that most Americans would agree on. And yet we just have trouble even agreeing on the common sense things.
Christian Adams (29:26):
Election officials are often full of themselves. I am on the Election Assistance Commission board of advisors, which is a convoluted process, but lemme just say I had to go to a meeting last week of the board of advisors. It was filled with election officials. They don't think they ever mess up. They don't think they do anything wrong. And so when you're up against that sort of mindset, they're not a big fan of any scrutiny.
Jenny Beth Martin (29:51):
Well, and it's very Christian. One of the things, I think one of the things that I've seen with people who've gotten involved in election integrity since the year 2020, you have a lot of people who are computer programmers and who have done this in a professional environment for years getting involved in this space. And part of the reason that they are is because they're sitting there and their mind is just blown with the lack of quality assurance testing that is going on. The lack of real audits in a computer system front to back, the whole entire system and the obvious glaring mystique and loopholes in it that would never stand in corporate America. And they come in and they're looking at it and they're asking questions and they'll go to their local election board or they go to an elected official or wherever it might be.
Jenny Beth Martin (30:48):
And these people who have never done this professionally, have never programmed computers, don't understand a database, wouldn't even know what one looked like if it bit them, are like, no, you're wrong. I've been told that it's this and I know that I am right and not making a mistake at all. And you who've done this for 20 or 30 years in your professional life don't know what you're talking about. So that attitude that you're talking about, we see it across the entire country from election officials and sometimes they are wrong. They may be an expert on the law, but the law is much different than a computer program. And the case in Harris County highlights that
Christian Adams (31:32):
And the case in Michigan, Jocelyn Benson, if you could replay history here, and when we went there in 1999, if she had just said, oh, thank you so much. I might not agree with you politically, but this is something I can look into. These 27,000 dead voters that you guys spent a lot of money by the way, finding. We didn't just pull this out of thin air. We got into credit agency reporting commercial data, and she would've said, we're going to take a look at this and actually done something. The country would've been better off, there'd be more trust in the system. And instead you get this polarized response from her that she could do no wrong and you guys are the problem. That is the attitude she had all throughout this litigation.
Jenny Beth Martin (32:20):
And at that point, it's not even a republican, democrat, conservative, liberal issue, it's just we would on the street and ask 10 out of 10 people would say, yeah, dead people should not be voting in the elections. I mean, it's a no brainer. So the fact that they're just so POed to any challenges at all, very, it just shows how dysfunctional it is, but it's with groups like you and the activists around the country and the other groups who are involved in this space who are truly making a difference. And you're making a real difference because you're taking it to the courts and showing exactly where the flaws are with the law and trying to get things cleared up and enforce people to actually do what the law tells them they're supposed to do.
Christian Adams (33:12):
Thanks, Jenny Beth, I will tell you, it's very frustrating when you said something really profound. You're like, if you asked people on the streets what they think about dead voters, I like to say if you asked anybody 20, 30 years ago, right? This is a different country where it's a good government thing to take the names of dead voters to election officials for action. And now Benson is so polarized about this and she has allies, by the way, trust me, Pennsylvania's the same way. I could go down the roster of other state election officials where no longer do they treat you like an ordinary citizen trying to make things run better. They treat you like an ideological foe, and that's unfortunate.
Jenny Beth Martin (33:54):
It really is. Well, Christian, how can people get involved? Is there anything that they can do to help you and your organization?
Christian Adams (34:03):
Well, first of all, I failed to mention there's a $2,000 reward for the identity of the person who sent the death threats. Maybe they have some ex-girlfriend because after all these guys probably couldn't keep a girlfriend very long, or a knucklehead nephew who's bragging at Thanksgiving, there's a $2,000 award. Go to public interest legal.org if you know anything about the identity of the person in Philadelphia who sent the death threats, public interest legal.org. There's information about all these cases.
Jenny Beth Martin (34:35):
Very good. And repeat the website one more time.
Christian Adams (34:38):
Public interest legal.org. Public interest legal.org.
Jenny Beth Martin (34:44):
Very good. Well, thank you so much for being with me today. It was enlightening and I hope people learn something and I hope that they follow the work that you and Public Interest Legal Foundation are doing.
Christian Adams (34:54):
Thank you, Jenny Beth. Thanks for having
Narrator (34:56):
Me. The Jenny Beth Show is hosted by Jenny Beth Martin, produced by Kevin Mohan and directed by Luke Livingston. The Jenny Beth Show is a production of Tea Party Patriots action. For more information, visit tea party patriots.org.
Jenny Beth Martin (35:16):
If you like this episode, let me know by hitting the light button or leaving a comment or a five star review. And if you want to be the first to know every time we drop a new episode, be sure to subscribe and turn on notifications for whichever platform you're listening on. If you do these simple things, it will help the podcast grow and I'd really appreciate it. Thank you so much.