[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. What a big day in America this is on two fronts. Members of the Electoral College in all 50 States plus the District of Columbia are convening to choose the next President of the United States.

After President Trump's nine to nothing flame out at the Supreme court on Friday night, we can now finally say with confidence that the electors will give President Trump only the 232 electoral votes he won at the polls and President-Elect Joe Biden his 306.

After the first minus 84-degree refrigerator trucks rolled out this weekend, the first Coronavirus vaccine given in the United States outside of a clinical trial was administered here in New York City this morning. The first shots in New Jersey are expected tomorrow.

The Electoral College vote is usually without drama, more of a formality confirming the will of the voters than a real election of any kind, but we know this year is different and at least one of the States that Joe Biden won decisively after Trump won it in 2016, Michigan, Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer has concern for people's physical safety today.

Gretchen Whitmer: The legislature won't be in session today and so the Capitol Commission because of intel that they had decided to close the Capitol for the purposes of our Electoral College vote today.

Brian: Governor Gretchen Whitmer on morning edition today. Of course, she herself was the target of a kidnapping plot that people have been arrested by the FBI and accused of. We will see what happens today there and elsewhere.

For the record, even after today's Electoral College vote, the election isn't official and President Trump and some Republicans are expected to try at the one remaining juncture to overturn the election results again.

That's when Congress has to vote to accept or reject the state electors on January the sixth, but both houses would have to agree to nullify there and Trump certainly does not have the math to prevail in the Democratic house.

With me now, Anita Kumar, Politico White House correspondent and a board member of the White House Correspondents' Association. I'll also ask her how she and her colleagues plan to hold Joe Biden accountable and Rebecca Green, law professor at the College of William & Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia, and co-director of their Election Law Program, a joint project of the law school and the National Center for State Courts and boy, did state courts play a role in protecting our democracy the last few weeks. Hi Anita, hi, Professor green. Welcome back to WNYC.

Anita Kumar: Thanks.

Rebecca Green: Thanks for having me.

Brian: Do we have both of you?

Anita: Yes.

Rebecca: I think I'm here.

Anita: You have both of us.

Brian: Good. Anita, some of your political colleagues report that the Biden campaign has spent days making sure each of their electors has precise logistical information about today, including transportation and a backup plan in case of protestors who actually try to disrupt their ability to vote.

Are you reporting on any credible threats? We heard the governor of Virginia there and-- Governor of Michigan, I should say and Trump never has promised a peaceful transfer of power.

Anita: Remember this weekend, he's still saying that he's not done with these fights. We don't know really what form that's going to look like because, at this point, this is really the ending. This is really the place where we think Joe Biden will really secure the victory that people have been talking about and there's really just one step after this.

This is going to Congress. A lot of Republicans have told us even people that support President Trump that this is the day that they have been waiting for, for this vote. We don't know. I'm sure that there will be people around the country may be protesting or talking about this. I don't know of anything serious at this point.

Remember, it's not one big meeting. It's scattered around into all 50 States and the District of Columbia. It's not like they can try to disrupt one particular thing. It is interesting though that they are meeting and are supposed to meet in person because of coronavirus. That poses logistical problems as well.

Hopefully, by the end of tonight, by the end of the day, Joe Biden will have secured that victory, and people can move on from the election finally.

Brian: Professor Green, can you tell us how this is supposed to go around the country today? Do the electors vote at a certain time, do time-zones matter, are they doing it virtually because of coronavirus or in person this year? Set the logistical scene for us today as well as you can.

Rebecca: Sure. The logistical details of Electoral College meetings in the States are governed by state statute and every state has a different procedure laid out in its statute, but all follow the same basic structure which is most states statutes require-- The state statutes require that these meetings happen at state capitals, they require that they usually, by statute, that they happen at a certain time.

We will see time zones mattering. For example, California, the Electoral College doesn't meet until later today three hours behind. I can't remember if it's at noon or not, but either way, it will be staggered given times zones and the electors gather, they cast ballots for President and for Vice-President, and then those ballots are recorded and transmitted to the national archivist, to the President of the Senate, to some state officials and also to federal court.

It's a pretty simple procedure, it's not rocket science, and it happens without much notice most years. Of course, this year is different. In terms of the question about virtual meetings and non-virtual meetings, I can tell you that I believe Nevada is the only state that will be holding its Electoral College meeting remotely.

As it happens, Nevada Statute doesn't actually require that it happened in a location certain. Apparently, Nevada thought because of that, it had a little bit of flexibility to make sure to keep the electors safe.

Brian: Anita, Politico reported as of a few days ago that the Trump campaign declined comment about how it plans to handle today. Are you expecting any theatrics such as having electors in the States that Trump won boycott to further try to delegitimize the election or anything like that?

Anita: We don't know of anything specific, but what we do know is that President Trump is still talking to state officials and still publicly, as you saw this weekend, both on Fox and on Twitter, urging States to do more.

I wouldn't be surprised even if a particular lawmaker or excuse me, official elector hasn't spoken to the President of United States that they might think, "Well, maybe I should do something here or maybe I should act a certain way, because some of that is just really public."

I do expect that the President won't be done with fighting this. Whatever form he can take at this point, he could still try to do something. It's just he has not been successful so far. The chance of him being successful after this point today is very, very remote.

Brian: Professor Green, I see from your bio that you produced a webinar series for judges in advance of the 2020 election and the set of election war games, as you called it, offered at state judicial conferences in several states.

Now we know that judges both at the state and federal level are turning out to be the heroes of democracy by upholding the law, rather than the interest of the political parties they came from.

A count by The Washington Post over the weekend, I don't know if you have your own count or if you saw this, found that at least 38 judges appointed by Republicans rejected the Trump post-election lawsuits that sought to overturn with some writing searing opinions. How proud are you of this branch of government that you study and teach about?

Rebecca: I have to say, it really is the case that you can say whatever you want at a microphone at a press conference, but you can't say whatever you want in court. You have to back up claims with evidence. We have seen the federal and state judiciary perform their function, which is to weigh evidence and when it's lacking to dismiss claims.

That has happened resoundingly which is indeed a testament to the judiciary, but that's how it's supposed to work. This is what we were all saying before the election, if there's evidence to weight, it will be weighed and if the evidence isn't credible, it will be dismissed. Everything has unfolded just as it should.

Brian: Anita, President Trump had been hyping the Supreme Court's role in this for weeks. As you know, he called the case that they rejected Friday night, the big one. Can you remind us of how he raised expectations about that and how he reacted once the ruling came down that rejected the bid to throw out the votes in four key swing states?

Anita: Yes. I'm going to take you back before the election. Remember when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and he wanted to push through his nomination to the Supreme Court right away of Amy Coney Barrett, he talked a lot about then, he just didn't go into any details that he thinks that the election would be decided at the Supreme Court.

He was saying this long before the actual election day in November saying that he expected there to be disputes that would be decided at the Supreme Court level. He has also talked a lot about how he feels that those that he supports or excuse me, that he nominated would be on his side on different things and of course we know from the two that had been there before this recent nomination, that wasn't the case. He lost some things. He wanted some things at the Supreme Court and those that he nominated the justices did not necessarily go with him.

He has been talking about this, you saw that they quickly resolved this issue and said that he didn't have standing. He argued with the Supreme Court, the same thing he's been arguing, which is that state legislature should be making changes to voting laws, not judges in those States, not governors, it should be up to the legislatures and it just didn't go anywhere and he reacted as you would probably expect by this point saying that he was disappointed that they didn't show courage and that it's not over and so we expect to continue to hear from him about this until he leaves office in January.

Brian: Listeners here we are on electoral college day and if you have any questions about the electoral college or what happens even next between now and January 6th, when Congress has to accept the electoral college votes or not or about the Supreme Court case, the ruling that came down on Friday night, this is our first show since then or anything related.

We have two great guests, Anita Kumar, Politico White House correspondent, and Rebecca Green law professor at the College of William and Mary Law School and co-director of their Election Law Program. 646-435-7280, 646-435-7280 or you can tweet a question or comment @BrianLehrer.

Professor Green can you explain part of what the Supreme Court actually ruled on Friday night? It looks to me like all nine justices ruled that the state of Texas, which technically filed the suit, had no standing to even bring a case about voting rules in other States but two of the justices offered a slightly dissenting opinion.

Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote that they would have taken the case, but they would not grant the plaintiffs any other relief and they express no view on any other issue. Can you take out your legalese to English dictionary and tell us what that means.

Rebecca: Yes. Basically, what Texas was asking was to overturn essentially the results in another state and they were claiming that they were deficiencies in other states' election processes that hurt Texas voters because it was like a vote dilution argument.

When one state tries to go to the Supreme Court because of something that other states have done, in legalese, it's known as original jurisdiction, meaning that there's no other court that could hear that claim other than the Supreme Court.

In rejecting the Texas' brief on standing grounds, essentially what the court said is you have no legal injury that we can address or provide a remedy for when another state runs its election in a way that displeases you. That's just not something that the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on.

Alito and Thomas didn't descend on that point. They just said that they thought that the Supreme Court is required to take jurisdiction in the case, but they took the further step of saying, but we would provide no relief, even if we did think that the court should actually hear the case.

Either way on the merits it was a blowout. It was a rejection summarily of Texas' claim that it could have a say in how other States run elections. That's in keeping with our Federalist system where states, when they're directly granted authority by the US constitution can't be interfered with by other states. That's I hope a quick and dirty of what went down on Friday night.

Brian: Yes, and it really means they did slap down the lawsuit on its merits with, in a certain respect, Alito and Thomas of all people being the most explicit about that of the nine justices. I heard some commentary over the weekend from people who wish the Supreme Court had gone further and given Trump a real rebuke about letting his people bring all these frivolous lawsuits. Would you say in a way that they did that in those very few and slightly opaque words?

Rebecca: I think this summary dismissal of the claim was loud and clear. I think that the court is very, very conscious of not wading into political waters and wants to say as little as possible, and I think that's why they didn't bother

Brian: More than frivolous, a lot of people were saying this was a seditious lawsuit for its attempt to overthrow the will of the people and really democracy itself. Anita, notably, there was no dissent of any kind from the three justices whom Trump appointed Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. What do you make of that? Or how is anyone reacting to that?

Anita: I would just make that there were doing what they thought was right but I'll just go back to President Trump always has said that he feels that those that he has nominated should be on his side and so in talking to people close to him, that's one thing that he particularly doesn't like that he did not like seeing that.

I don't think that the result was a surprise overall, but he made note of that. He really thinks that there should be some allegiance there. Of course, these are three branches of government. He does nominate the Senate confirms and these justices are on the Supreme Court.

He has that link, he feels that there is something there that they should be siding with him, so I think on a personal level that is upsetting to him but the result is the result.

Brian: Professor Green, these webinars and state judiciary war game exercises, so-called that you were involved with before the election, did anything resembling the scenarios that actually played out come up or did reality turn out to be stranger than anything you could dream up hypothetically, in a seminar?

Rebecca: I think we weren't alone in wargaming gaming the selection. A lot of us thought it was going to be a cybersecurity related issue, a lot of the war gaming that we did and this is years ago, had to do with gaps in state statutes that could cause confusion about how an election should come out but I think it's fair to say that between the pandemic and Trump's refusal to concede, I think there's certainly a lot of uncharted territory that we're going through.

Brian: All right. Listeners, we're going to continue in a minute with Anita Kumar and Rebecca Green. We're going to start taking your phone calls. Steve in Monmouth, stand back and stand by. I see your question about what if the Proud Boys surround the state houses on Electoral College day-to-day and we'll take it from there as we continue on the Brian Lehrer Show.

[music]

Brian: Brian Lehrer on WNYC on this very significant day in America. Its Electoral College day around the country. It's also the day that the very first Coronavirus vaccine has already been administered, the first vaccine outside of a clinical trial, of course, and it was administered here in New York City.

We'll do a whole segment on that and what comes next later on for New York and New Jersey. New Jersey's first vaccination is expected tomorrow. We have two [unintelligible 00:18:42] reporters on that coming up in a little while, but right now were surveying the scene on Electoral College day with Anita Kumar Politico White House correspondent and Rebecca Green law professor at the college of William and Mary law school and co-director of their Election Law Program.

Steve in Monmouth County are you are on WNYC. Hi, Steve. Thank you for calling in.

Steve: Hi, Brian. This is Steve calling from the crossroads of the American Revolution. That's right Monmouth County battle of Monmouth, crossroads of the revolution. The hypothetical war game question was, let's say the Proud Boys and the other fascist groups, surround state houses, block roadways, in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, so that these electors cannot cast their ballots.

Now we have less than 270 votes and everyone else votes and maybe even you get a couple of faithless electors for that vote for Trump instead of Biden. Then what happens?

Brian: I don't know if this is for the law professor or the White House correspondent, but White House correspondent, Anita Kumar, I'm going to give this to you. Is anybody war gaming that?

Anita: I don't know. I think she would be better to answer, but I would say this, that individual states are monitoring this, and they're supposed to be making sure that this process can go smoothly and that's why you've seen each state having different precautions and some have gotten threats and they're getting escorts and they're making sure they have security.

I don't think we'll get to that point because I think that there are so many people in charge today that are making sure this process goes. This is not something that there was a threat or something that just happened this weekend.

People have been preparing for this for months based on what happened during the election, based on rhetoric from the President. I don't think any threats would be taking anyone by surprise today.

Brian: Rebecca Green, do you want to comment on this? Is there any history of terrorism or any other violence actually preventing electors from doing their job?

Rebecca: Not that I'm aware of and I think the other thing to point out is it's not like you could disrupt one Electoral College meeting in one state and disrupt the outcome of this election. In other words, you'd have to have multiple state disruptions.

That means that the, the forces would have to overcome, the full strength of those states' police force and whatever else. It doesn't seem likely that we're going to see that type of insurrection unfold today. We'll see what happens. I'm expecting that there'll be protests and other issues on that could arise, but I'm not expecting a multi-state takeover of our electoral system.

Brian: If a civil war does break out inspired by the President, we know he would be a chicken hawk and claim me as bone spurs to get him out of doing the actual fighting himself, but that's probably another show. Anita, Trump and Giuliani do say, they'll keep fighting to overturn the election. Do they actually have more lawsuits to file even after their record is like the New York Jets of federal court?

Anita: I would say that they're going to start losing, I think, support from fellow Republicans. While they might try to do something in a court, they might try to publicly talk about this. This is a really significant day politically in that there are many Republicans, members of Congress, people around the country, state lawmakers who said, what they're waiting for is this Electoral College day.

After today, how can they do that? There is this final step that we've talked about, on January sixth, where there will be some pushback in the House. We don't know about the Senate, but that's likely just to delay the inevitable for a few hours.

It's not going to get much further than that. I think that you'll hear more rhetoric, but I just don't know that there's any path for them to take and most importantly, the party and significant members, influential members of the Republican party are going to say to President Trump, it's time now to move on in this process.

Brian: We have a January sixth question, I think from Tom in Brooklyn. Tom you're on WNYC. Hi.

Tom: Hey there. It seems like since the actual actually been dodging bullet after bullet after bullet to overturn the election, and you just mentioned January sixth, there'll be some pushback at the house. What if in fact the house were held by Republicans where they came much closer to actually taking it than anyone expected? If both houses were controlled by Republicans, what then and how can we protect our democracy against these types of scenarios?

Brian: It's such a great question in a way it's one of the ultimate questions for the future, Professor Green. Is the line that thin between electoral democracy and political authoritarianism if individuals didn't have the individual ethics to not take it where the constitution apparently allows them to?

Rebecca: I think this comes down to a law that was written in 1887, the Electoral Count Act, which governs how disputes are resolved in Congress on January sixth. The language, is not airtight, let's put it that way and so I think there has been a lot of concern about political mischief arising, because there are these loopholes or gaps in that statute.

I think it would behoove members of Congress to take a look at that law and think about ways that they can shore it up but I will say that according to that law, Congress is required to take the lawfully certified electoral college votes in the States.

Even a political intrigue on January sixth would require elected representatives who swear to uphold the constitution to disregard the way our law works and that would be pretty extraordinary even given the political flames that are certainly lit.

Brian: I will say for people listening right now, who never thought about this January sixth thing before, because it was just never an issue before, even though it's there on paper, both Houses would have to vote to overturn state electors.

It looks right now, like neither house, even if Republicans hold the Senate on January fifth and Georgia, even if Republicans hold the Senate, neither House appears to have the votes for that and certainly the votes aren't there and Nancy Pelosi's House of Representatives.

Some Republicans may want to put on a show, but even I'm not very worried about that subverting the democratic process and as you know listeners, I was concerned about the courts. Whatever political theater we may see on January sixth, there's no indication that that can undo what the electoral college does today.

Professor Green, let me take Tom in Brooklyn's question a level deeper, because I think both parties are going to seek election reforms after this electoral system stress test that our country has been going through is completed.

I imagine Republicans will want different kinds of vetting of absentee ballot signature envelopes, for example, and maybe more restriction on judges giving citizens voters more leeway than the legislature might've given them in the laws that they pass.

Both those things of course have been central to the Trump campaign's claims and Democrats might want to somehow protect the vote from politicians who might not be scrupulous as Republican state legislators have turned out to be in many cases this year.

Some Democrats want to scrap the electoral college altogether, of course, but even a national popular vote would have to guard against voter suppression and fraud. For you as an expert in all this, is there anything you think should be considered?

Rebecca: I think I'd start with this very false dichotomy that we've been living under for years now, which is that Democrats get behind access to the polls and Republicans care about integrity of the vote and that then the idea that those are mutually exclusive.

I think if we learned anything this year, it should be that both are required. In other words, we need to make sure that our elections are secure and that people can see for themselves how they operate at every level and ensure that they operate with integrity.

We also need to make sure that every eligible voter has an opportunity to cast their ballot and those, I think are two propositions that everyone can agree on. I hope that as we work to reform how elections are run given what we've been through, I hope that that legislators will remember that both are important, access and integrity.

As far as Federal reforms, and you mentioned the national popular vote, that's one that's unfortunately been politicized and I'm increasingly convinced that any change to the electoral college system has to happen through a constitutional amendment but I do think that there are things that Congress can do to perhaps make our elections more uniform so that there's not quite as much confusion.

I think there is a huge amount that can be done to address election emergency laws so that we're not left trying to figure out who has authority to accommodate which voter when, but this really has been such an extraordinary-- All the way since the primaries, it's been such an extraordinary year that I think there's a lot of fodder for reformers to get to work.

Brian: Rob in Queens you're on WNYC. Hi, Rob.

Rob: Hi, I had two questions regarding the electoral college and you guys are actually hitting on one of them but my first is who elects the electors and the second, do your guests think that the electoral college will ever actually be abolished?

Brian: Anita, you want to take that?

Anita: I don't know. [chuckles] There is talk all the time about like switch this system. In 2016, if you'll recall, when Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, there was talk about, let's get rid of this Electoral College system and go with the popular vote. There's talk about it this time around.

It seems like there's always talk about it, but I just don't know if it's going to get to that point and people that not this year, of course, where Joe Biden both won the popular vote and the Electoral College, but last time, four years ago, there's a lot of politics here. People are saying, "Well, you only want to get rid of it because your person lost. This is how you win is that you win the Electoral College and you don't win the popular vote sometimes."

Those people are considered losers and they're only saying that because they lost. It's a tough thing politically, I think. There's always talk about it. I just think it's-- I don't know that it's going to get to that point, or certainly not this time.

Brian: And a related question, Professor Green, from the listener on Twitter, "When are we going to get rid of all these steps to choosing a President? Doesn't it seem drawn out waiting for the Electoral College, waiting for the House? I didn't even know the House had to sign off on the election." Writes this listener who posts as check-off sister. What would it take to get Congress out of it? Would that also take a constitutional amendment like abolishing the Electoral College?

Rebecca: Yes, it absolutely would. This is the system that our framers constructed for how to elect a President, and it was created in a vastly different time, is an understatement. A lot of the sort of drawn-out nature of it had to do with how long it took to get places by horse. Literally, it comes down to that. I don't think it's been a nail-biter in previous years, and none of us paid much attention to it, but certainly this year, I think those fissures are exposed because of the refusal to concede.

Brian: We're almost out of time, Anita Kumar, before you go, I want you to put on not just your White House Correspondent's hat, but your hat as a board member, which I see wore of the White House Correspondents Association.

After the Trump era of journalism is the enemy of the people, how will you and other White House Correspondents hold the Biden administration accountable, even as you understandably breathe a sigh of relief that Trump's specific threat against reporting the facts is gone?

Anita: Yes, it's a great question. We're really expecting huge changes in January, mostly because incoming Biden administration has said, they want to, for example, bring back the daily briefing. Remember, when we had that every day. It'd be midday, and you'd hear from the press secretary, and we haven't seen that so much lately.

They want to restore trust, they say in the media and how they work with media. Really, it's quite early to-- We don't have a sense, really, of all the things that they want to do besides that daily briefing, but I will say that generally, there are reporters and journalists that are getting a little bit worried because they feel like things have been very restrictive so far in the transition.

The President-Elect is taking some questions some of the time, not too many. A lot of it is really complicated by coronavirus. The question is really, how many reporters will be able to come into the White House?

What will that interaction look like? Will the Biden team even have staffers on-site at the White House? A lot of those questions are really unanswered right now. We're waiting for them to give an indication of what they're looking to do, but remember, while we hear that they're announcing new cabinet officials and nominating people, there are a lot of those lower level staffers haven't been announced yet.

They don't exactly know who's going into the White House yet and I think until they get to that point and start figuring things out, we need to wait a little bit and see how we respond to that.

Brian: It's going to be a balancing act, I imagine after the uniqueness of the Trump era because on the one hand, you don't want to lay down and not scrutinize Biden's policies aggressively with questions from the left, questions from the right questions about sheer effectiveness, any whiff of scandal that might come up.

At the same time, you don't want to look like you're overdoing it and huffing and puffing just so you look like you're fair and balanced.

Anita: Yes, and I'm going to always say that I think even before Donald Trump ever-- We ever really thought he was running and he came into the White House, I think that reporters are always scrutinizing the President and the staff no matter which party I expect that to continue, but there will be a different tone for sure at the White House, coming from this team.

They want to do things differently and we'll just have to wait and see how that works and what they say. Reporters are always going to say, "We want more access." While people may be got sick of seeing President Trump come out every day or reporters go in to talk to him and yell questions at him, we're going to want the next President to be available and accessible and having news conferences and having these White House briefings with the press secretary. We're going to want to continue to have that and push for that access.

Brian: I see one bit of breaking news. I'm seeing that White House officials were going to get the jump on getting prioritized in front of frontline healthcare workers for coronavirus vaccines, but now they're not. What happened there?

Anita: Yes, this was something that came out yesterday, basically last night, where there's priorities, obviously, across the country for certain workers first, and word had leaked out or gotten out that White House officials would be getting it earlier than others.

President Trump said that he did not like that, he actually tweeted about that and push them to say, "No, we're going to do it a different way, and unless they absolutely have to get this first, depending on what their job is, that's not going to happen."

That was one of those things that he put out there by Twitter and then privately said it as well, where he did not think that should be the case, so this is going to be very controversial over the next few months, who gets the vaccination and when. There's constantly changing parts, but this one came from President Trump himself.

Brian: I have one more thought about this and I'll admit, it's just a suspicion. Trump is taking credit for Operation Warp Speed, rightly enough, I think, helping the vaccines get ready this quickly. In the back of my mind, Anita, I wonder if he's not going to turn somehow and become an anti-vaxxer or start showering credibility in various ways on the anti-vax movement to try to discredit Biden, when he's in charge of distribution through discrediting the vaccine, and even depressing people's willingness to get vaccinated at a high enough rate to create herd immunity in the country. It's just a suspicion, but do you see any whiffs of anything like that?

Anita: It's so interesting you said that I have heard other people suggest that that might happen. I haven't seen any sign of that. In fact, I've talked to a lot of people these last few days about the vaccine, and how much President Trump is taking credit. Many of them say he deserves the credit. This was really a hugely fast process and they credit the administration to that, but they wonder what he's going to be like when he gets out of office and whether he will try to discredit Joe Biden.

It's a good question. I haven't seen a sign of that yet but you just never know what's going to happen. I will say that a number of people I've talked to have said that the President if he should run in 2024, or at least he should announce he's going to run in 2024 and then not do it later, that he is going to run on this. He's going to run on how quickly this vaccine came out.

It would politically do him a world of good, I think, to continue to say he did a good job, his administration did a good job and not discredit it because he wants this, he should want this to be a success.

Brian: Anita Kumar, Politico White House correspondent and board member of the White House Correspondents Association, and Rebecca Green law professor at the College of William & Mary law school in Williamsburg, Virginia, and co-director of their Election Law Program, a joint project of the law school and the National Center for state courts.

Professor Green, we've really appreciated your analysis on the two appearances that you've made. Maybe we won't need another one in the short run between now and the inauguration of Joe Biden, but from your appearances on the show, I think anybody who's been in law school and had you as a professor, during this particular term, has been lucky and we'll never forget it. Thank you for your appearances here too.

Rebecca: Thanks very much.

 

Copyright © 2020 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.