WE’RE JOINED BY TOM SPENCER TO
TALK ABOUT THE LEGAL SIDE, MORE
DETAIL.
DEMOCRACY PRESIDENT AND FLORIDA
RECOUNT ATTORNEY IN BUSH V. GORE
DAYS 20 YEARS AGO.
TOM THANKS FOR COMING IN.
BRYAN WENT THROUGH PENNSYLVANIA
AND JOHN THROUGH NEVADA.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU HEARD
FROM THE CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS THAT
MIGHT STICK?
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT SHOULD BE
CONCERNING?
WHAT DO YOU MAKE WHAT HAPPENED
IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS IN
TERMS OF WHAT HAS BEEN FILED AND
WHAT HAS BEEN THREATENED?
>> THIS IS A TYPICAL SITUATION
INVOLVING ELECTION LITIGATION.
THERE ARE A LOT OF ALLEGATIONS.
THERE IS A LOT OF INFORMATION
COMING IN TO THE LEGAL TEAM.
A LOT OF FORENSIC PEOPLE IN THE
FIELD.
A LOT OF INVESTIGATORS, LOOKING
AT RECORDS AND THEN LOOKING AT
WHAT HAPPENED.
AND THE FORMULATION OF THE LEGAL
ISSUES TO BE PRESENTED TO THE
COURT.
AND ULTIMATELY OBVIOUSLY IT WILL
BE A COURT TO DECIDE IF THEY
WIN.
IT IS A HEAVY BURDEN IN AN
ELECTION LITIGATION.
THEN WHETHER OR NOT IT GETS TO
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES IS ANOTHER ISSUE.
BUT THERE ARE SOME VERY,
ESPECIALLY IN PENNSYLVANIA,
THERE ARE SOME VERY SUBSTANTIAL
ISSUES.
CONNELL: WHAT’S THE BIGGEST
ISSUE IN PENNSYLVANIA?
WHAT WOULD YOU LOOK AT MOST
CLOSELY IN THIS STATE?
>> THE ISSUE IS THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF WHAT THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DID IN TAKING ON LEGISLATIVE
RESPONSIBILITIES AND CHANGING
THE ELECTION RULES, JUST BEFORE
THE ELECTION WITH RESPECT TO THE
DATE OF THE ELECTION, EXTENDING
THE DATE OF THE ELECTION, WITH
MAIL-IN BALLOTS FOR POSTMARKS
AND BALLOTS WHICH, REALLY DON’T
EVEN REQUIRE POSTMARKS BY THE
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
SO THE QUESTION THERE, PRESENTED
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES WILL BE, DID THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HAVE THE RIGHT UNDER OUR U.S.
CONSTITUTION TO MAKE THOSE
CHANGES OR IS THAT EXCLUSIVELY
WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE
LEGISLATURE.
CONNELL: RIGHT.
THOSE POSTMARKS, POSTMARKS WHEN
A POSTMARK CAN’T BE READ, THAT
SEEMS TO BE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS
THAT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE
HOW THAT ONE IS -- IS RULED ON.
CAN I ASK YOU ONE OTHER LEGAL
STRATEGIC QUESTION IF YOU DON’T
MIND.
>> SURE.
CONNELL: THIS GOES BACK TO 20
YEARS AGO.
WHEN THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT,
CLOSE RACES IN A NUMBER OF
STATES BUT THE CONCENTRATION ON
THE LEGAL SIDE WAS IN ONE STATE,
IN FLORIDA, WITH THE HANGING
CHADS AN EVERYTHING ELSE.
>> RIGHT.
CONNELL: WOULD THAT BE ONLY WAY
TO SUCCESSFULLY CONTEST A
ELECTION, HYPOTHETICAL, PUT ALL
RESOURCES IN ONE STATE AS
OPPOSED TO FILING ALL THE
LAWSUITS ALL OVER THE MAP?
WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO GO ABOUT
IT?
>> THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS
ENOUGH RESOURCES TO PUT
EXCELLENT LEGAL TEAMS IN EACH OF
THOSE STATES THAT ARE GOING TO
BE CONTESTED AND DEVELOP
STRATEGIES AND LEGAL THEORIES
WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THEM.
SO THEY’RE DOING EXACTLY THE
RIGHT THING.
AND IT JUST, A QUESTION OF
PATIENCE AND TIME AND EFFORT AND
THERE WILL BE A WINNER AND A
LOSER.
CONNELL: THE TIMING OF THAT,
RIGHT, IS DECEMBER WHEN YOU HAVE
TO CERTIFY THE ELECTORS.
IS THE GOAL I GUESS FROM, IF
YOU’RE REPRESENTING THE
CHALLENGER, THE PRESIDENT, TO
GET A CASE TO THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT BY THEN TO TRY TO
LATCH ON TO ONE OF THESE CASES
IN ONE MUCH THE OTHER COURTS TO
DRIVE IT ALL THE WAY UP THERE?
IS THAT ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU’RE
TRYING TO DO YOU THINK?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
IT IS A SPRINT.
THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE CASE
DETERMINED, FINALLY BY DECEMBER
THE 8th.
CONNELL: RIGHT.
THAT IS THE BIG DATE.
BECAUSE WE HAVE TO CERTIFY THOSE
ELECTORS AND MOVE FORWARD.
AS WE DID IN THE YEAR 2000 AS
YOU WELL KNOW.
>> RIGHT.
CONNELL: TOM, GOOD TO HAVE