This is [music] Bloomberg Law with June

Graasso from Bloomberg Radio.

After just 14 months, Pam Bondi, a loyal

Trump ally, is out as attorney general

after failing to deliver criminal cases

against President Trump's political

enemies. Bondi oversaw the unprecedented

transformation of the Justice Department

into an arm of the White House and tried

to pursue cases against Democrats and

the president's perceived political

enemies. But will her successor fare any

better? Facing the same factual and

legal hurdles and a skeptical court

system, my guest is constitutional law

professor Harold Krent of the Chicago

Kent College of Law. Hal, tell us how

the Justice Department became an arm of

the White House under Bondi. Something

we've never seen before.

>> Obviously, the ties between the actions

on the ground for the Department of

Justice and the president become closer

and closer. Obviously, that's been a

priority of the president to try to take

everything in his own image and make

sure that he can direct even very minor,

you know, issues, but in this case, very

important prosecutorial issues. And the

Bondi's reign is probably most notable

because of the revenge that Trump

overtly tried to take against his

enemies via the Department of Justice.

>> So apparently one of the reasons that

she was fired is that Trump wasn't

satisfied with her prosecution of his

political enemies, but she did try. It

seemed like the legal system stood in

her way.

>> Yeah. I mean, the irony is she did his

bidding and she tried to, you know,

politicize, weaponize the Department of

Justice, whichever word, you know, works

with the James Comey prosecution, with

the prosecution of John Bolton, Leticia

James. She's just trying to follow

President Trump's orders of trying to

get back at his enemies, and it didn't

work. Was it her fault? Probably not. It

just wasn't there. And so the the fact

that she's being canned because she

couldn't do the impossible is really a

partial triumph of the justice system in

the United States, but also an irony as

well.

>> She did appoint Lindseay Halligan as a

US attorney and a judge throughout the

prosecutions against Comey and James

because Halagan was illegally appointed.

But I don't know if Haligan was Bondi's

choice or Trump's choice. So if you

think about what's gone wrong, there's

the the weaponization of the Department

of Justice to go against Trump's

enemies. Also, the chaos that was sown

because of these interim appointments

and probably the fault doesn't lie with

her. It probably lies with the president

or the president's closer circle. But we

have the Lindsey Hallagan, the Alina

Haba, about five other prosecutorial

offices, major prosecutorial offices in

the United States that are just in chaos

because the president wasn't able to

appoint somebody who could be confirmed

by the Senate. And then the shenanigans

with trying to get these interim US

attorneys in place had just bounced back

in his face. And maybe he blames that on

her, though again, it wouldn't be fair.

>> Hundreds of career employees left the

department during Bondi's tenure. She

also shut down units investigating

public corruption and curtailed

investigations into corporate and

environmental crime. How different is

the department now compared to before

she took over?

>> Well, those such as me who served in the

Department of Justice just wonder if

after Trump, will there be respect built

up for the Department of Justice?

Because what we've seen is the fact that

so many people have left, so much

knowledge, so much experience, that the

president's having a hard time getting

his agenda accepted by judges. And

that's because people who are there,

attorneys who are there, are no longer

as respected. And so there's been a

blowback from judges just both with

ineptitude and lack of credibility,

which has undermined his ability to get

convictions. I mean, and that Jerome

Powell is a great example of how he

tried to get subpoenas and tried to move

because of cost overruns against the

Fed. and the judge said, "What are you

doing? Where's the evidence?" And the

attorneys couldn't even point to

anything to show why there is a need for

the subpoenas against Pal. So, it's a

good example again of the blowback

because of the lack of competence and

care taken by the Department of Justice

in building these cases.

>> Temporarily, he's installed his former

personal defense lawyer, Todd Blanch.

Todd Blanch has been deputy attorney

general. So, do you expect to see any

changes under his tenure? don't and I'm

not sure what the president can

accomplish with this switch because the

problem I don't think lies with Pam

Bondi except for maybe one exception

we'll get to but the problem is just the

fact that there's not a lot of evidence

not a lot of experienced attorneys and

so his mission to get the courts to

agree with what he wants to do is not

succeeding I don't think it's going to

succeed under Todd Blanch either

>> and Todd Blanch I know some former

federal judges have expressed

displeasure shall we say that Blanch

came out at a federalist society

function and said the justice department

is at war with the judiciary and rogue

judges. That's not the kind of statement

you expect to hear from a deputy

attorney general.

>> No, he's been very confrontational, more

confrontational in fact than Pam Bondi

with respect to judges. And I don't

think that is going to end up with

judges rolling over. I think we're going

to see judges continually to reject much

of the mission of this administration. I

I want to just mention, I'm sure you

will too, the one exception is Pani did

not handle the Epstein files well and

obviously she was in a terrible

situation and there's all sorts of

conflicting evidence and and

difficulties in dealing with the Epstein

files, but she did make it worse and

she's going to testify before Congress

and I'd be very curious about whether

she's going to take the fifth fifth

amendment and testify or not. Uh but she

did worsen the president's situation.

She did not protect the president with

respect to the Epstein files. Is there

any difference with her no longer being

the attorney general? Like, should Trump

have waited until after that deposition?

>> I don't think there would be a a

material difference. I could be wrong.

Um, but I think most of the issues could

be a privilege issue in terms of

protecting what the president told her.

It could be still a privilege issue of

not trying to undermine ongoing criminal

investigations. And there's obviously a

privilege against self-inccrimination in

case that comes up. So I don't think

she'll be in material different

position, but I know Congress once at

her and they want her testimony and the

most basic thing was she said she saw a

client list, right, of Jeffrey Epstein

and then it disappeared. Well, what is

she going to say about that? And that

may not be subject to privilege and

that's why Congress has been so adamant

that she testify and why she's in a very

dicey situation should she turn up.

Might some of the problem be the way she

expressed herself and framed the issues?

Will Todd Blanch have a different

approach? Maybe a softer approach.

>> I'm not sure that Blanch is going to do

a softer approach. You know, I think

Blanch has been pretty hardedged so far

in his dealings with the judiciary. I'd

be surprised if that changed. I mean,

yes, I think her judgment with the

Epstein files is the one area that one

can really point to where she did not

protect the president, but I think

Blanch will have even more difficulty if

trying to get at Jerome Powell, trying

to get at John Bolton, trying to get at

Comey, at James, and so many others.

And, you know, the chaos in the US

attorney's offices because of the

appointments isn't her fault. I don't

think she was a mastermind of that. You

know, I think that came from somewhere

else. So, I'm not sure that Blanch can

improve on that either.

>> Yeah. He said on Fox News Thursday, "To

the extent the Epstein files was a part

of the past year of this Justice

Department, it should not be a part of

anything going forward." That's not

going to work.

>> No. And again, Blanch may have a

different strategy and he won't be sort

of uh subpoenaed by Congress the way Pam

Bondi is because he hasn't sort of

perjured himself or made some very

difficult to understand claims about the

Epstein files. But I'm not sure what the

right strategy is. Again, I think if you

step back, the president has put the

attorney general in such a difficult

position, both with respect to the

Epstein files, but also with respect to,

you know, many of these prosecutions

that I think almost anyone is doomed to

failure unless they can sort of talk the

president down. And we haven't seen

evidence that many people can talk the

president down. Also, uh Todd Blanch was

responsible for interviewing Galain

Maxwell and then suddenly the next day

she gets sent to a prison camp.

Convicted child offenders are not

supposed to be allowed in those kind of

camps. So the fix was in somewhere

there.

>> Yeah. Many people were expecting even a

pardon and we haven't seen that. Uh but

but obviously she's in better quarters

than she was before. and what kind of

cooperation he was able to obtain, what

kind of information he was able to

obtain has not been revealed. Um, and

but he's obviously has some built-up

relationship and maybe the president

just to wants to rely upon that

relationship to protect him at least

with respect to the Epstein files

>> and Blanch can only serve for 120 days.

>> We're expecting that either perhaps

Blanch can be appointed during that time

period, perhaps somebody else will be

appointed. Um, I'm not certainly not

privy to those kinds of discussions, but

he is knowledgeable about the Department

of Justice. He's certainly knowledgeable

about the president. So, I think it's a

wise choice for the president in terms

of at least as an interim attorney

general. But what follows is really

critical.

>> And so, the prediction market is betting

on who'll be the next attorney general.

And Lee Zelden, who's currently the EPA

chief, is the front runner. Betters are

placing a 47% probability on him being

the next attorney general. there. Again,

he's carried out Trump's mission at the

EPA. So, why would he be any different

as attorney general? Anyone who gets

appointed is going to be subject to the

same presidential demands.

>> It is not a job that I would cherish at

this moment because it's it's an

impossible job. And again, I think Pam

Bondi did her best to help the president

with the exception of the Epstein files.

I think she did she was a loyal soldier,

but it's an impossible job. And unless

somebody can sort of talk down the

president and limit his desire to go

after enemies and weaponize the

Department of Justice, I think the

succeeding attorney general will have

just as difficult of a time as Pam Bondi

did.

>> New York Attorney General Leticia James,

where the the attempts by Bondi to

prosecute her failed. So apparently

they're still trying with a different

angle. But at what point does it become

a slam dunk case of malicious

prosecution,

>> right? All right. And the same thing is

true with James Comey um and with

others. And I think again the courts are

just tired of it. And I think that

they've seen these thinly papered up

prosecutions and they're insulted. And

they're insulted by the competence of

the attorneys. They're insulted by the

preparation for the cases. They're

insulted by the theories of the

prosecutions. And I hate to say it, but

just wasting taxpayer money. And I'm not

sure what Trump thinks he will gain by

this because he's just losing respect

and the ability of courts in cases that

probably he should care more about and

they may turn against him in those as

well.

>> Hal, I've been wondering if you see any

strategy in the way President Trump is

dealing with the Supreme Court. After he

lost the tariff decision, he was

brutally critical of the justices who

voted against him. And the night before

the birthright citizenship arguments, he

criticized judges and justices in a post

on social media. He then attended half

of the oral arguments and afterwards

posted about how stupid birthright

citizenship is. This all seems

counterproductive to me.

>> No, I think at the beginning his

fiousness with the Supreme Court did

serve a purpose. There was a theory that

might be sort of borne out by the

evidence that he tried to make make the

court very weary of a confrontation and

because of his assertiveness and

dismissiveness of the court they didn't

want to challenge him and I think that

led to particularly the use of the

shadow docket so there was not a written

opinion it led to all of these cases

where they really voted in favor of the

Trump administration but then with the

tariffs case and all the gloves coming

off and belittling the court and making

fun of them. You know, even the

conservative justices I think have been

deeply insulted to the core and I think

that's basically just increased their

resolve to vote against the president in

the birthright citizenship case and

others coming down the lane. So again,

it's not good strategy. It's just

Trumpism. And there's a study in Just

Security that revealed that more than

210 cases since the start of 2025 where

the courts have issued strong rulings

against the administration's conduct.

>> Yeah. The lower court judges have been

firmly aligned. Many Republican judges

joining Democratic judges in saying this

is lawless. You have to follow the law.

We have a rule of law in this country.

It's been cherished. It's part of our

tradition. It's part of our future if we

hope. and that the administration is

just going over the line and I don't

think his effort to push judges from

that has succeeded. Maybe again it maybe

did a little bit at the beginning but I

think it's only going to get worse and I

think he has basically you know undercut

his own position to such an extent you

know bit off his nose to spite the face

one could say that he's going to face

more and more losses in the courts it's

not going to be a happy situation. Is

anyone talking yet about a preemptive

pardon for Pam Bondi?

>> You know, she stepped down. She's been

involved in all these controversial

issues, particularly perhaps lying to

Congress with respect to the um Epstein

investigation. And so, just as Biden

considered preemptive pardons, she might

wanted to solicit a farewell present

from the president in the shape of a

pardon, just so she could go on with her

life and not worry about possible

criminal charges. What seemed a little

off to me is that Christy Gnome, who was

fired after two US citizens were killed

by DHS agents under her watch, she was

given another position. But Pam Bondi,

who was so loyal to Trump, was not given

another position.

>> Well, it's also an interesting signal

that loyalty may not be enough in terms

of surviving the Trump administration.

The other thing I would mention I've

been fascinated about this last couple

days is the leaks that have coming out

from the Trump administration. I think

there must be a lot of officials, a lot

of the rank and file are no longer

worried about repercussions and they

seem very willing to go to the press and

to spill out all this information

obviously even before the discharge

happened um etc. So there's signs then

that the cracks that the administration

because it's not rewarding loyalty, so

it's not attaining loyalty from the

troops.

>> There's also been a lot of speculation

about who in the cabinet might be next

to be fired. Thanks so much for joining

me today, Hal. That's Professor Harold

Krent of the Chicago Kent College of

Law. So far, there are four legal

challenges to President Trump's

executive order on mail-in voting.

Democratic le states, Democratic

congressional leaders, the League of

Women Voters, and civil rights groups

are all suing to block the

administration from prohibiting mail-in

voting for anyone not on a preapproved

list of citizens to be compiled by the

Department of Homeland Security. For

years, Trump has claimed without

evidence that there's widespread fraud,

including non-citizen voting, in US

elections. This executive order is his

latest effort to alter elections since

his defeat by Joe Biden in the 2020

presidential election. Joining me is an

expert in elections law, Richard Bralt,

a professor at Columbia Law School.

Rich, start by explaining this executive

order.

>> Trump's executive order requires two

lists. One is that the Department of

Homeland Security in cooperation with

the Social Security Administration and

other government lefties will come up

with a kind of a statebystate voting

list, a state specific citizenship list

of people eligible to vote and they're

supposed to transmit that to the states

by 60 days before the next federal

election. The states I I skipped a step.

The states are then supposed to tell by

60 days before the election the postal

service which of their voters are

expecting to use absentee or mailin

ballots. Then also the postal service is

supposed to create a list of people

whose mailin ballots will be accepted

and transmitted by the postal service.

The postal service will in the meantime

will developed by a rule that basically

says that only those voters who are on

the the federal voting eligible list

will have their mail-in ballots actually

transmitted by the postal service.

There's other stuff about also

developing a unique identification QR

codes on each ballot which I think many

states have already started to do. But

the key idea is that there will be a

federal voting eligible list created by

the federal government to the states and

then the states will send a list to the

postal service and the postal service

will only carry absentee or mail-in

ballots that the postal service

concludes are eligible based on the

Department of Homeland Security's

citizenship list. So, we're supposed to

trust that the Department of Homeland

Security in conjunction with the post

office has given us a list that's

accurate. It sounds like there would be,

you know, just forget the legalities. It

sounds like there would be a ton of

problems with this.

>> Yes. I mean, basically, Homeland

Security has only really gotten into

this fairly recently. They're relying on

the Social Security Administration.

Social Security Administration itself

says that it kind of requires people to

self-certify whether they're citizens.

They don't check citizenship. And

apparently they don't really have any

records on citizens before about 1981.

They only began to check citizenship in

the 1980s and they really only look into

citizenship for people who are actually

claiming social security. DHS its

citizenship records were mostly based on

people becoming citizens through

naturalization or other processes. There

may be other federal databases that have

this information, but the idea is that

they're going to draw from all the

relevant federal databases to come up

with a a state citizenship list which

they will then transmit to the states by

60 days before the next federal

election. The states are not mandated to

use this. Actually, it doesn't actually

require the states to use this list, but

the assumption is the states will either

will or will be guided by it. It kicks

in more when the states send their

absentee voter list to the postal

service, which will have supposed to

have developed a rule that says they'll

only handle absentee ballots for voters

who are on the federal list. That's

where the federalist has bite.

>> So, there are several lawsuits. There's

one by more than 20 Democratic le

states. There's another by top Senate

and House Democratic leaders. one by a

coalition of voting rights groups and

another by civil rights groups. So the

basic contention is that Trump doesn't

have the authority, the president

doesn't have the authority to make these

changes by executive order.

>> Absolutely right. I mean, I guess the

president probably has the authority to

require the DHS to develop a list, but

he has no authority to require the

states to use it. Interestingly, it

doesn't actually say they have to use

it, although there's lots of talk about

prioritizing the attorney general to go

after voter fraud, uh, which they can do

anyway. And there's also talk about

maybe cutting off funding for states

that don't use the list, although again

it doesn't say that. And it doesn't

actually say funding relating to

elections. So, it can be anything which

itself would be unconstitutional. The

bite is in the directive to the postal

service. He has no power to give

directives to the postal service. The

postal service is an independent

corporation with its own board of

governors. I mean president has some

role in you know in making nominations

to the board of governors but he cannot

direct them and he cannot remove them

and they are subject to federal statutes

basically requiring universal carriage

of mail with specified exceptions for

mail that can be exempted. Mail involved

in crimes for example. This is not one

of them. So you can't mandate the postal

service to do this. The postal service

in any event would have to go through a

rulemaking process which would certainly

take some time and is hard to believe

would be finished before this election.

And it seems extremely unlikely, almost

certainly illegal, that the postal

service could refuse to carry mail

that's not otherwise barred from the

mails by federal statute. Because to get

back to the beginning of all of this,

the president has no power to regulate

elections. Period. The constitution

gives power to regulate elections to the

states and then also says that congress

can regulate the phrases time, place or

manner of federal elections. And so if

Congress were to pass a statute like

this, it might work. there would be

issues but at least conceptually

Congress has the power to regulate the

procedures for federal elections and to

regulate mail and voting in federal

elections although even Congress can't

decide who's eligible to vote in in

federal elections even then it's really

the states Congress can regulate time

place and manner

>> do we face a a problem perhaps because

the head of the postal service right is

a Trump appointee

>> I mean it's possible but they they still

would have to go through a rulemaking.

Even the executive order says that that

they have to go through a rule making.

It's hard to imagine a rule making

getting done in less than six months.

That would be a fast rule making. They

have to write a rule. They have to put

it out for notice and comment. They have

to respond to the comments and that

itself would take some time. And then

there is the problem that the executive

order is asking the postal service to

refuse to deliver mail in a way that

such a refusal is not authorized by any

federal law. So they can't adopt rules

that decline to carry mail other than

for the kinds of reasons that are in

federal law. And until Congress acts,

this isn't one of them.

>> Okay, stay with me, Rich. Coming up next

on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue

this conversation with Columbia Law

School professor Richard Bralt. How

likely are the groups suing the Trump

administration to get temporary relief?

I'm June Grao and this is Bloomberg.

More than 20 Democratic le states, as

well as top Democrats in the House and

Senate, a coalition of voting rights

groups and civil rights groups have

filed lawsuits to block President

Trump's latest executive order

restricting mail-in voting. The suits

argue that the US Constitution empowers

states and Congress, not the president,

to determine who's eligible to vote by

mail. I've been talking to Professor

Richard Brafalt of Columbia Law School,

an expert in elections law. Rich, since

the law seems so clear here that the

president doesn't have the power to

outlaw mail-in voting by executive

order, do you think it's likely that

that one judge or more than one judge

would issue preliminary injunctions

stopping this executive order from going

through?

>> You know, I mean, part of the funny

thing is it's not quite clear what this

order requires. It's not clear to me

that a court would bar DHS, Department

of Homeland Security, from trying to

develop this list. It certainly would

get an injunction barring any federal

action requiring the states to use this

list. Although the executive order

doesn't literally require that. It

really comes in kind of through the side

doors of well, we might cut off your

funds. So that's something I think that

could be barred. This might be a basis

for prosecutions that could be barred.

And this has got to feed into the to the

postal services regulation on what mail

and ballots they would carry. Now again

that I can imagine that kind of

directive to the postal service being

barred except you could argue president

doesn't have the power to direct the

postal service. So I would think that if

this actually had any bite it could be

blocked. Oddly enough one of the

arguments against an injunction might be

this doesn't actually do very much.

Nonetheless, to the extent that it has

any kind of interorum effect and surely

it does and there are other things in

it. There are requirements for example I

was reading for uh recordkeeping of all

poll books, records of absentee ballots,

records of people signing in to vote,

everything relating to federal

elections. It says states uh and local

governments have to keep them for five

years. Existing federal law is only 22

months. In other words, from one

election day until just before the next

one on the assumption that in fact

states and especially local governments

have limited storage capacity and they

kind of need to clear it out to get

ready for the next election. Well, this

would extend that and I was reading this

would be incredibly burdensome on state

and especially local uh elections

offices which is really where most of

elections are regulated. Many of them in

say rural counties don't have the

capacity. So you can imagine that some

of that uh all the stuff requiring the

states to send their list of absentee

voters an alen voters 60 days before the

election. In many states you can you can

request an absentee ballot up to 10 days

before an election. So that's the kind

of thing that again having this out

there could very well intimidate some

state officials, many local officials

and of course many voters who fear that

they're out of compliance if they apply

late. I think more than anything, and

this I think has been the kind of the

hallmark of this administration, it just

creates chaos and confusion. And that

just makes it hard for everybody. It

makes it hard for administrators. It

makes it hard for voters and it may, you

know, whether intended or not,

discourage people from voting or just

confusion itself is discouraging. And so

I do think that's part of what's going

on here. So the Supreme Court heard oral

arguments already in challenging whether

a state can continue to count mailin

ballots that were postmarked by election

day but received afterward. Do you think

that Trump administration might try to

appeal this on an emergency basis to the

Supreme Court?

>> I think they might try. I mean again

it's hard to say what the emergency is.

At least the argument in the that case

that's called the Watson case. There is

a federal statute on the books. there is

a federal statute that says there's

shall be a single election day and it is

whatever it is November 7th or what it

varies from year to year that at least

was the legal hook for that lawsuit is

that election day means that that's the

day that all the ballots have to be in.

You could argue about that but there is

a federal congressional statute that's

the basis for the claim here. There's

nothing. there's just a kind of an

assertion that the president's

responsible for election integrity and

we have all these laws designed to

punish election fraud which is true but

none of them come remotely clear to

requiring anything like this so no I

think that would be a hard cell and

indeed the the president's earlier uh

executive order on elections from last

year I think that's been enjoined all

over the country and they've never taken

it up to the Supreme Court

>> and I just want to note that President

Trump again voted by mail

>> yes

>> um in a Florida special election in

March. So, you know, it's just a

continuation of his complaints about

mail in voting. So, I'll ask you again,

which I've asked you so many times

before, to tell us whether there's any

proof that there is fraud in mailin

voting.

>> Again, I don't want to say there's no

proof because with millions of votes

being cast all the time, there's bound

to be some. There is certainly no proof

of any significant or or more than

minuscule amounts of fraud in connection

with elections. There are so many uh

security mechanisms when people register

to vote in the first place, when they

request ballots, when the ballots are

sent to them, when the ballots are sent

back, when they're open and they're

counted. Again, never say there's no

fraud, but to the extent that there's

been any proven fraud is next to

nothing. And especially in the last 10

years as the all the accusations of

fraud have mounted, there have been many

more hunts and searches for fraud,

particularly in so-called red states

where there are Republican attorneys

general or Republican secretaries of

state who've made a big deal out of this

and have done massive searches and they

will come up with one, two, three, four,

five people. Not always mail in.

Sometimes they're inerson voting. Most

commonly it's people who think they're

eligible to vote and are not. think

they're citizens but they're only have

green cards or people who are convicted

of a felony and think that because

they've served their time that's over

with but in fact the ban may be lifetime

and sometimes it's been mistakes made by

local election officials who say yeah

you're fine when you know the local

election officials mistaken this coming

election uh in November what you know

100 million ballots 150 million ballots

will be cast in multiple elections I

mean typically when people are voting

they're voting We vote for dozens of

offices, federal, state, and local.

There will be improper votes. I don't

want to call them fraud necessarily

because sometimes the person voting

doesn't realize that he or she is

ineligible and they're not intending a

fraud, but they are ineligible. So,

there may indeed be ineligible voters,

but kind of a very minor level.

And Rich, what are some Republican

states trying to do as far as requiring

proof of citizenship?

>> These issues are about what proof do you

need to bring either when you register

for the first time or when you come to

the polls to vote and then what counts

as good proof because in fact, you know,

in other countries people are required

to carry around government issued IDs.

We don't have that. that we do have

driver's licenses, but in some states

you don't have to be a citizen. And

indeed, the so-called Real ID, which is

now required for flying, that doesn't

require proof of citizenship either. I

think some states have have sort of um

reconfirmed with new laws that you have

to be a citizen to vote and may require

some proofs, but the question is always

there's two or three stages. What do you

need to do when you register? What do

you need to do when either when you

request an absentee ballot or send it

in? Some states would proposals or you

have to have a photocopy of your

passport. Passport is proof of

citizenship. A photocopy of your

passport when you make your request

andor when you send in the ballot and

then of course what you need to do when

you actually come to vote. Until

recently, the the battle was over just

proof of ID. Uh but now increasingly

people are trying to have proof of

citizenship and that just gets hard. You

know, people don't carry this

information around with them. People

have often said, well, you know, what's

wrong with having proof of ID? You need

proof of ID to fly. You don't need proof

of citizenship to fly, at least flying

domestically. So, that's really where

really all the fighting is. No one

denies that you need to be a citizen to

vote in federal elections and I think in

every state election. The question is

what proof need has to be provided at on

election day and how serious is this

issue that we're basically going to make

people bring their passports given that

a big chunk of the country doesn't have

a passport

>> or we're going to bring make people

bring their driver's license given that

a lot of people don't have driver's

license and even the driver's license

isn't necessarily proof. So I mean I

think people are getting very excited

about this but in fact we don't have the

bureaucracy and the documentation

requirements of proof of citizenship at

least we have not had that traditionally

until now. This has been a good thing

>> and I understand that some of this would

just be logistically impossible.

>> It would be impossible for the states to

use the citizenship list if they don't

get it until the day they have to turn

in their absentee voter list to the

postal service. There's a lot in this

thing that regardless of what it

attempts to do that literally doesn't

work. In addition to I mean it is both

unconstitutional in many ways but in

many ways it it literally won't work

because of the way that the deadlines

actually don't interface properly and it

ignores the fact for example for federal

elections we have primaries all the

time. I mean at least up until September

there seem to be primaries every couple

of weeks and these are these are for

federal offices. So the same rule is

supposed to apply for those too.

uh they you'll be sending out that

citizenship list all the time.

>> You have to wonder how much research was

done before this executive order was

written. Thanks so much, Rich, for

joining me on the show. That's Professor

Richard Bralt of Columbia Law School.

And that's it for this edition of the

Bloomberg Law Show. Remember, you can

always get the latest legal news on our

Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find

them on Apple Podcast, Spotify, and at

www.bloomberg.com/mpodcast/law.

bloomberg.com/mpodcast/law.

And remember to tune in to the Bloomberg

Law Show every week night at 1000 p.m.

Wall Street time. I'm June Graasso and

you're listening to [music] Bloomberg.