Justin Reamer of Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITIE) critiques Maryland’s DMV voter registration, where non-citizens like illegal immigrant Ian Andre Roberts—later apprehended by ICE—were added without proper screening. He defends voter ID laws, citing Virginia’s Voto ID as evidence of no disenfranchisement, and opposes universal mail-in voting, favoring requested absentee ballots and Election Day deadlines despite transparency concerns. Reamer argues election integrity was undermined by unconstitutional executive actions in 2020, not fraud, while Congress prepares to review 3 million Epstein files and debate DHS funding, including reforms tied to ICE threats and operational shutdown risks. [Automatically generated summary]
There's going to be a hearing tomorrow with Attorney General Pam Bondi.
If any person mentioned in the Epstein files whose name is currently redacted would like to get out in front of this and disclose stuff, they may want to do that before the storm hits.
Thank you.
Today, Attorney General Pam Bondi will testify on the mission and programs of the Justice Department as members of Congress are able to view some 3 million unredacted documents in the Epstein files in person at the Justice Department.
Watch the House Judiciary Committee hearing live at 10 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 2.
C-SPAN now, our free mobile app, and online at c-SPAN.org.
With 266 days now until the midterm elections, we're joined by Justin Reamer, President and CEO of the group Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections.
Mr. Reamer, the mission is in the name of the group, but how does your group go about achieving that mission?
Sure.
Well, we are dedicated to ensuring the rule of law in American elections, and we do that primarily through litigation and through investigations.
We sue states and localities that are not following the law.
And we also intervene to defend challenges to election laws like voter ID and similar policies like that.
What are the main laws that you're suing over?
Sure.
Well, the state laws and federal laws impose duties on election officials to do certain things.
Maybe when they're enacting policy, they have to check certain boxes.
And we're basically a watchdog organization to make sure those things are being done.
And when they're not, we come in and sue.
How long have you been around?
How are you funded?
We have been around for over four years now.
And we're funded by individual donors and organizations that share our mission as well.
The goal is restoring integrity and trust in elections.
When do you think we lost those things?
Well, I certainly think the confidence in our elections has been a big issue since at least 2020.
I've been involved in election integrity and election security since around 2008.
So I've been doing this for a long time, but obviously it's become a huge national issue since the 2020 election.
So what would restore integrity and trust in our elections?
So I think there are certainly, we need policy improvements.
We absolutely need policy improvements.
I think largely it's the states that are responsible for those, but I do think there's an important role for the federal government to make some of these changes, especially when it relates to updating existing federal laws that are already regulating our election system.
When President Trump talks about nationalizing elections, is that something you'd agree with?
What does that mean?
Well, my understanding is that the nationalizing elections is really in relation to some of this federal legislation that we've been seeing introduced in Congress, things like voter ID, documentary proof of citizenship, trying to clean up our voter rolls, those types of issues.
I don't think we're going to have the federal government running around actually administering our elections in this country anytime soon.
The policy prescriptions you talk about just there seem to be included in the SAVE Act that we've heard so much about.
Are you in favor of the SAVE Act?
So we are in favor of policies that are in the SAVE.
And now I guess it's the Save America Act, which is essentially requiring proof of citizenship when voters register to vote for federal elections, as well as voter ID requirements.
These are policies that Wright has supported at the state level.
And we think that there is some needed federal action in this area because there are laws that already regulate some of these processes at the federal level, but they've proven to be, in my experience, incredibly inadequate to the task.
How much support do they have at the state level?
What are you finding?
States are pretty protective about Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution, that states determine the time, place, and manner of elections.
So how much support are you actually seeing for a new federal law that has to do with how people run elections?
I think that we've reached a point where there's a recognition, at least on the conservative side where I'm coming from, that some federal action is needed.
Certainly states run elections in this country, but the Constitution says that Congress can step in and enact certain processes.
For example, federal law already regulates how states maintain their voter rolls.
But in my experience, it actually makes it more difficult for them to do so, and it rewards states that aren't doing enough.
And so that would be an area where I think it's entirely appropriate for Congress to step in, even if states are maintaining primary control over the process.
Not on the conservative side where you're coming from, but Glenn Ivey on the Democratic side of the aisle, he was asked about some of these changes on NewsNation on Sunday in a conversation about nationalizing the election.
This is the Maryland Democrat.
But on the question just of voter ID, is that something that we can find bipartisan agreement on that it's time for a voter ID system in the country?
Well, maybe, but two quick points.
One is they still haven't established that it would address any fraud that's out there because guess what?
They've never demonstrated any kind of fraud in the electoral system.
Remember when Trump tried to argue that 60 courts across the country, federal and state, Democrat, Republican, all rejected it entirely.
So, you know, it's a solution in search of a problem in one big way.
And the other part is what I just said.
You know, if they really want to be credible on this, they need to make sure that they're doing everything they can to move away from the lies about 2020.
Justin Reimer, is voter ID a solution in search of a problem?
Well, it's something that over 80% of Americans support, including a majority of Democrats in many polls, including a majority of minority voters in many polls.
And so this is wildly popular.
There's few issues that could come before Congress that are more popular than voter ID.
And regardless of the prevalence of voter fraud, this is something that people want, and it's something that gives confidence in the elections process.
It's just intuitive.
It's absolutely common sense.
I live in Maryland.
When I go to vote, it still shocks me every time that I'm actually not asked to show my ID.
So these are broadly popular policies.
They've proven to not disenfranchise voters despite the claims that people have made about them.
Voters adjust their behavior.
It's somewhat insulting in my view that voters aren't able to provide an ID in order to vote.
If the Save America Act is passed, is there enough time to institute the changes amid a midterm election year?
We're already on top of primary season in this country.
So my understanding right now is that the provisions on requiring proof of citizenship would take effect before the election, but that the voter ID provisions would not take effect until after the midterms.
And so, and I think that's reasonable.
It does take time to implement new laws.
I've been an election official and understand I've implemented dozens of laws passed by the Virginia General Assembly.
And you do need some time sometimes.
There are already states that have similar policies in place where there's not much adjustment that's going to be needed.
But for other states, it is going to be an adjustment for sure, and it will take some time to implement.
Justin Reamer, our guest, the group Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, writeusa.org, if you want to check them out.
He's with us for about the next 25 minutes or so, taking your phone calls, your questions.
Republicans, it's 202-748-8001.
Democrats 202-748-8000.
Independents 202-748-8002.
You mentioned living in Maryland, but implementing Virginia laws.
Can you just talk about your background on this issue from Capitol Hill to what you do now?
Sure, absolutely.
So I was an election official in Virginia from 2010 to 2013, where I was a deputy secretary of the State Board of Elections.
We were responsible for administering the state's elections, including the 2012 presidential election.
We had statewide recounts with margins under 1,000 votes.
So I've seen these issues from the inside and running elections.
I also worked in the Senate for a short period of time on the Senate Rules Committee, which has oversight over these issues and will be important in deliberating on this federal legislation.
And I've been an election law attorney since that time, basically involved in litigation on all these voting issues, and as well as campaign finance and other election law issues.
When it comes to restoring integrity and trust in elections, why is it, do you think, that, according to polling, the subset of Americans who tend to have the most trust in the integrity of our elections are poll workers themselves, just on average have a much higher level of trust than the average American, the people who are at the polls and working the polls.
Should we trust that they know the system the best?
Yeah, I think it's a good point.
And something that I've encouraged people to do that do have doubts about the process is that they should volunteer to be a poll worker or a poll watcher because it is the best way to really see how elections, how our elections are run.
And I do think, by and large, the process is run relatively well.
Certainly poll workers aren't responsible for policy or anything like that.
And I think that can be improved, as I've mentioned.
But I do strongly recommend that people volunteer, especially if they have doubts about the process.
When was the first time you were a poll worker or a poll volunteer?
Boy, probably going back to about 2008, I would say, would be my first experience in the polls, usually watching.
And when I was an election official at the state level, I couldn't really be a poll watcher because we were overseeing the whole process.
You said a lot of these concerns stem from 2020.
What was your experience on election night on 2020?
My experience on election night, I was the chief counsel of the Republican National Committee.
So I was very busy, both in the several months leading up to the election and for the period after the election.
The RNC was involved in probably 60 lawsuits leading up to the election, fighting over these rules related to whether the policies were going to change because of the COVID epidemic.
And it was quite an experience, to say the least.
Do you think that election was rigged or stolen in some way?
I personally do not believe that the election was stolen.
But one thing that I get very frustrated about is that it somehow has to become a binary choice, that either the election was the best run, most secure, air-free, perfect election, or that it was absolutely stolen and Donald Trump won in a landslide.
I just reject that distinction.
What is the nuanced view?
The nuanced view is that there were certainly lots of problems in 2020.
I think too many states made hasty changes to their election processes that created sloppiness and that sowed some doubt in the process.
I think there were governors that took executive action that was unlawful, that exceeded their powers under the state constitution.
What's an example?
Oh, geez, New Jersey, for example, where they went all vote by mail very suddenly, went from being a, you know, largely in-person voting state, and then through executive order, you know, basically went all vote by mail.
California did the same thing until we at the Republican National Committee sued them, and then the legislature went in and actually passed those changes.
I think there were problems with court decisions that were made where they upheld, you know, processes that violated state constitutions.
And I can understand during a pandemic why there needed to be changes made, but I think it went a little too far.
But again, I don't think it's a binary choice.
And I think a lot of Americans actually feel that way, that there were problems, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the election was stolen.
Some Americans waiting to talk to you.
Let's start in Florida.
Kurt in Cocoa Beach, Republican.
Good morning.
I don't think it's a choice, but I think a lot of them.
Kurt, you're with us.
Hello.
You're on with Justin Reimer.
Go ahead.
What's your question or comment?
My question revolves around what is involved in a recount, and is it independent by each state?
The rules of what a recount is mainly, if you counted a thousand votes, you're probably going to recount 1,000 when you recount them.
But the validity of each ballot, is that looked at, or is it simply just a counting process?
Thanks.
How's the recount work?
That's a great question.
So like a lot of things in our election system, it's going to vary very much by the state.
The traditional recount is that you're simply recounting the ballots that were originally tabulated on election day.
And that can either be done by hand or it can be done through a machine recount where the ballots are refed through the scanner, through the tabulator.
These are the paper ballots that people mark.
Correct.
And you would basically see what mistakes there were.
Oftentimes, voters don't properly fill out the oval marking their selection, and the scanners don't always catch those.
And they're marked as what's called an undervote, where the voter doesn't completely mark the entire ballot.
And a lot of times in a recount, you'll review those ballots and see that, oh, actually, they know that voter looks like he marked or she marked that ballot.
And that sometimes changes the results a little bit.
I think sometimes people think a recount is sort of what we know traditionally as an election contest, where you're arguing that certain ballots were fraudulent or were not lawfully cast, or you're looking at other issues that kind of go beyond the actual just recounting of the ballots.
And some states' recount processes, they do have that as part of it.
In Virginia, for example, it's merely pretty much you're just recounting the ballots that were originally cast.
Voting Rights Restriction00:13:59
This is Raynard in Woodbridge, Virginia, Independent.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Just have a question about President Trump's pre-inauguration speech on January 19th, where he referenced in, I believe it's minute.
If you go to minute 52, he starts on a rant about the Olympics coming to America and then he won't be president, but then some he mentions some man's name by like John.
Reynard, what's the question?
I'm not sure I'm following where you're going here.
Oh, is have the Election Integrity and Authority group here looked into that portion of that speech to see exactly what Trump was referencing to?
You're talking about President Trump's January 19th speech.
Is that anything you've looked into?
That's not right.
Pre-pre-inauguration speech.
Yes, it was here in Washington, D.C. All right.
That's Raynard.
This is Ed in Indiana.
Democrat, good morning.
Good morning.
My question is, if I'm required to have a state ID in order to vote and I currently don't hold a driver's license and I have to get one and I have to pay for that, then that's a poll tax, isn't it?
Which is illegal.
So Indiana has a photo ID.
Their law was challenged, actually.
It went up all the way to the Supreme Court in a landmark decision.
Indiana does provide for free IDs for those voters who are not able to get one.
The truth is the vast, vast majority of voters have an acceptable ID under various state laws or even under the proposed federal legislation.
So you're left with a very small sliver of the electorate that does not have an acceptable ID.
And certainly provisions need to be made to ensure that voters are able to get an ID free of cost for those very few ones that do not have one.
For that exact reason, for the fact that we don't have poll taxes in this country.
Yes, I mean, we could get into technical legal arguments about whether that would be considered a poll tax.
But I think generally good, sound public policy on voter ID is that you have a provision for the provision of a free ID for those who don't have one.
Just for the Save America Act, for folks who haven't read through all of it, what constitutes an acceptable photo ID under that legislation?
Obviously, a real ID driver's license would probably be the first thing that comes to mind for people, but what else?
Pretty much government-issued ID, a variety of government-issued ID.
And there is a provision in it which basically says a state government-issued ID would be acceptable as well.
So the legislation does leave states with some discretion to determine what is an acceptable government-issued ID.
The Make Elections Great, Again, Act, a different one of these voting laws that are trying to be moved through Congress right now, has a lot of the provisions of the Save America Act, but also additional ones, including banning ranked choice voting and mail-in ballots.
Where are you on the MEGA Act, as it's known?
Sure.
So yes, MEGA is basically the Save America plus additional provisions.
I think there's some really good stuff in that legislation.
I think for one, it bans ballot harvesting, which we've seen has a particularly corrupting effect on our election system.
Define what that term means.
Ballot harvesting would be basically handing a voter handing off their ballot to a third party, a private third party, in order for that third party to deliver it to the election officials.
And so it brings up issues related to taking advantage of the elderly and others that are susceptible to that, ballot manipulation, even the third party not actually delivering the ballot on behalf of the voter.
It was a big issue in the North Carolina 9 congressional election in 2018 that they needed to rerun because ballot harvesting corrupted the process so much that they were unable to actually determine who was like the rightful winner of the election.
What about banning mail-in voting?
So the legislation actually doesn't do that.
What the legislation says is that a voter actually needs to make a request for an absentee ballot instead of the default process in some states, which is that they just mail a ballot to everybody.
I'm personally not supportive of universal vote by mail.
I think it relies on the USPS system, which is, as we've seen, not exactly on the upswing.
It's been degrading.
I think it's expensive.
In Nevada, for example, they mail a ballot to every single voter, and only half of the voters decide to vote by mail.
I don't think it's too much to ask.
If someone wants to vote by mail, it's fine with me, but you need to make that request instead of it going automatically out to the voter.
Also, when you combine the fact that some of these states don't have very good voter rolls, they're mailing ballots to addresses where the voter no longer resides.
And I think that's a security problem.
When somebody sends in a mail-in ballot, should it all be in by Election Day?
Or is that something that should be a universal standard among states of when those mailed-in ballots can be returned?
I believe it absolutely should.
Americans are rightfully upset about how long it's been taking to get our election results.
This used to be something that we were able to do very quickly even before the advent of modern technology.
And we've only been going in the opposite direction.
I think Americans reasonably expect that we get our election results on Election Day.
And I think getting those ballots in by Election Day would be a big help in that particular area.
Whether or not this federal legislation does it or whether the Supreme Court does it in a case that it will be hearing next month remains to be seen.
But I ultimately think what you're going to see is that the ballots will have to be in on Election Day.
What are the tea leaves to be read in that Supreme Court case?
What's your expectation?
I think it's going to be a close vote, personally.
I think it's a close issue.
My organization has been supporting the Republican National Committee's litigation to instill the National Election Day delivery deadline.
But it's a technical issue, and it revolves around the Congress setting a national election day for presidential and congressional elections and whether that means ballots can be returned after that date.
Dave, Hale, Michigan, Independent, about 10 minutes left with Justin Bremer this morning.
Go ahead, Dave.
Thanks.
Mr. Ramer, every vote counts very much.
And let's talk about a verification.
If I go in and I vote, it's a mail-in ballot, okay, why can't I go back in after the election and at the township or wherever I voted, there should be a small computerized verification where I put my ballot number in.
It won't tell me my name to anybody else or anything, but I'll be able to push that number in and it'll verify, yes, it got counted, no, it didn't get counted, and the reason why.
Please try to verify that because I know it's going to cost extra money to do this, but we'll have a small connection to that machine, okay, that counted it.
But by that number, got your point.
So confirmation that, you know, giving the voter assurance that their voter actually counted is obviously really important.
When you go to vote in person and you insert that ballot into the tabulator, it lets you know and it also will warn you if you've overvoted or there's some other issue.
And then when you vote by mail, typically you are able to, the state will tell you whether or not the ballot was ultimately counted.
And if there's some problem with the ballot, maybe you didn't complete the envelope properly.
Most states will allow you to cure that issue.
And so, and ultimately, you'll be notified whether or not that ballot counted.
Obviously, maintaining the secrecy of the ballot is extremely important.
And any new policies that would add on to that would need to factor that in.
This is Kerry, I believe, in Temple Hills, Maryland.
Democrat, good morning.
Go ahead.
Yes.
This is Kyrie Atworth, Temple Hills, Maryland.
I listened to the clip that you played of Glenn Ivey, my representative, who I'm actually running against for this primary.
Part of the thing about the SAVE Act is this is going to make it really difficult for people to vote, and we should make it easier for people to vote.
We already had this fight in the 60s, and it's kind of crazy and a bit racist that the Republicans keep trying to make it harder to vote.
We should make it easier, unequally registered people to vote, maybe over the voting age a couple years.
And mailing ballots is great.
If we only make it available for members of the military and people that have a pretty clear excuse, that's kind of crazy.
We saw in COVID that everybody benefits from mail-in voting.
So I just think it's crazy with all the prices going up, with people homeless, with climate change.
That y'all are still focusing on something that we've solved already.
So, Kyrie, we should run for Congress in the Democratic primary?
Yes.
Yes.
You ever run for Congress before?
I have not run for Congress before.
I've been a committee precinctman helping people actually register to vote in St. Petersburg, Florida, where you have to have a voter ID.
You have to have your driver's license.
It's really long voting lines.
I've worked at the polls.
It's a lot of extra work for the people working there, and it just creates a lot of unnecessary tension.
So, Kyrie, Maryland, what got you to jump in this time and throw your hat in the ring?
There's a lot of problems in the country.
Like I said, affordable housing is a big issue.
Climate change is a big issue.
Gun control is a big issue.
And we're not doing anything about it.
You know, we have ICE in the street killing people, and we saw people going to brunch and being like, oh, yeah, maybe we can work with Congress, or maybe we can work with Republicans.
And I don't know, fix the issue 10 years from now.
But I have kids.
I kind of want them to be able to enjoy the country that we have and not have to worry.
And the leaders we have, you know, they're at retirement rate, so they should retire.
I'm letting new generation take a shot.
Do you think Glenn Ivey should retire?
I think Glenn Ivey should retire.
I was very happy that Stee Hoyer decided to retire.
Whether it was his decision or if he was pushed out, you know, that's not for me to say.
But yes, we have a lot of politicians who've been in office for a really long time.
And some of them are really nice.
Glenn Ivey is really nice and has a nice soothing voice and has done some good work.
But he's been in office in various positions for a really long time.
His wife is in office.
His son is in office.
And Temple Hills and Prince George's County deserves more than one family representing us.
So when's Maryland's primary, Kyrie?
June 23rd.
It's Kyrie running for Congress in Temple Hills, Maryland.
Appreciate the call.
Justin Reamer, what do you want to pick up on?
A couple things.
One, I agree it should be easy to vote.
It's never been easier to vote than it is today in this country.
I think that what we have seen in my, I'll just use Wright as an example.
We have defended voter ID laws, for example, in court, and there's no better judge for whether a law suppresses a vote than it actually being adjudicated in a legal proceeding.
And what we see, these laws that are challenged time and time again, the plaintiffs are not able to actually prove that these laws disenfranchise any voters.
When I was in Virginia as an election official, we passed Voto ID, promptly sued by various groups, and they couldn't actually find a single voter that was disenfranchised by the voter ID law.
We've seen this in lawsuits.
Is this a standing issue?
No, no, they actually were.
Well, ultimately it wasn't resolved on standing, but the court was just like, there's no undue burden on the right to vote here because you haven't actually proven that anyone's disenfranchised by this law.
Same thing with Arizona's ballot harvesting law that was challenged and went all the way up to the Supreme Court.
They couldn't actually show that the ban on ballot harvesting in the state disenfranchised a single voter there.
So if these laws actually disenfranchise voters, I would agree with the caller.
But the fact remains that they do not do so.
On the ballot harvesting, can I just ask, if you are husband and wife and you're mail-in voting and I take my wife's ballot to the mailbox or to the Dropbox for the ballots at City Hall, am I ballot harvesting?
No, these laws generally have exceptions for those types of situations.
They have exceptions for voters that need help, the elderly.
Caregivers can deliver the ballot.
But what it prevents is this mass harvesting of thousands and thousands of ballots that are done by political operatives and others that essentially was unregulated.
And what these laws do is it really restricts it down more to people who actually need that ballot to be delivered by somebody else.
DMV Registration & Voting Reform00:06:36
Just a couple minutes left with Justin Reimer and several more calls for you.
Andrew, Kansas City, Missouri, Republican.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Sir, can you talk about campaign finance reform for us this morning?
Sure.
Well, there's not much on the federal horizon related to campaign finance reform.
The courts have largely, I would say to some extent, reined in the ability of Congress to enact new campaign finance reform.
I mean, certainly there's some things Congress could do, but that does not seem to be really a big priority right now for Congress.
And back to Cocoa Beach, Florida.
This is Ellen Democrat.
Good morning.
Hi.
Hello.
Good morning.
Can you hear me?
Yes, ma'am.
The reason I was calling is I remember President, well, he wasn't president.
Well, he was president at the time.
President Trump was complaining about how late things were coming into the election.
But as I understand it, there are states that don't even begin counting mail-in ballots until the polls close.
I think that's a big problem.
You know, if we want things to run smoothly and have these election results sooner, why aren't states counting those as they come in?
Justin Reimer.
It's a great question.
I'm personally supportive of what's known as pre-processing, which basically you process the ballot when it comes in, whether that's two weeks before Election Day or whether they started a few days before Election Day.
It's proven to allow for results to come in quicker.
It's less work on the poll workers and that spike immediately after Election Day and on Election Night.
And I think it gives voters confidence in the process when those ballots are counted as quickly as possible.
What's the arguments against that?
Well, I do think there's some reasonable arguments against it.
One being that oftentimes those pre-processing, the pre-processing is not done in a transparent way.
And it's done behind closed doors.
And I do think to the extent that states do pre-processing, they need to have observers present or at least allowed to be present to see that envelope being opened, the ballot being taken out, separated from the envelope, and whether it's run through a tabulator or just put in a stack, transparency is incredibly important.
Has there been an incidence where pre-processing vote counting numbers have gotten out?
Because I can imagine a situation in which somebody says, oh, this candidate's so far ahead, it's not even worth my time to go vote.
I'm not aware of any instances where the election results were actually leaked or something like that.
Almost all of these laws are very specific that you cannot actually hit the totals.
You cannot get the totals until after the polls close on election day.
That's crucial, obviously.
You cannot have that happen.
Last call, Mike in Jarrettsville, Maryland, Republican.
You're on with Justin Reimer.
Hey, good morning, John.
How are you?
Justin's a good guy.
We know him.
So listen, Maryland has become this one party state.
It's all Democrats.
They've gerrymanded us terribly before.
Now they want to do it again.
We've got to get more out of office.
He's the new shaft, we call him.
We call it the coal campaigns no more.
But here's the deal.
I want to talk about motor voting.
I go to the MVA, Maryland MVA, and Justin, you're going to see this too coming up when you renew your license.
I told him, we did the license part, eye test and whatnot.
And we got to this part.
And I said, look, I'm a registered voter.
I don't need to register.
I don't need to change my party.
I don't need to do anything with that.
And they insisted.
They even showed me that I was a registered Republican, you know, all this.
And I had to say that I had to, under penalty of perjury, that I was a U.S. citizen.
I already have our real ID.
I didn't want to go there.
I had to sign that I was under penalty of perjury that I was able to vote and actually make my party selection and everything all over again at the MVA.
It was ridiculous.
This is how, I'm going to close.
This is how these illegals, and not many of them are, but I'll tell you what.
In Maryland, you can ask the Attorney General, and the Attorney General's office will tell you that Maryland is so Democrat, they will not prosecute a foreigner, illegal, rather, pardon me, illegal, for voting.
All right, I'll hang up.
Thank you guys.
Justin Reimer, give you the final two minutes.
Sure.
Well, I think it's a good thing that you do DMV voter registration.
I think it makes a lot of sense.
And I also think, in theory, it should be the time where a government official has all your documentation and they can absolutely confirm who you are, whether you're eligible to vote.
But what we have seen, and including in states like Maryland, is you're getting non-citizens registered to the DMV.
You're getting other ineligible voters registering through the DMV.
They're sometimes automatically updating people's registration, even if they're not going there to change their residential address.
And so a large source of our problems in our voter registration lists actually stem from DMV.
And one thing I would add is when, especially in Maryland, all you have to do when you register to vote at the DMV is affirm that you are a citizenship, that you are a citizen.
It is essentially an honor system.
And it's the same when you register by mail or anything else.
But especially at the DMV, it makes absolutely no sense when they already can essentially know whether you're a citizen or know whether you're eligible and they've verified your identity that they're not doing more to screen out ineligible voters, particularly non-citizens.
My organization investigated a situation in Maryland, a guy named Ian Andre Roberts, who was an illegal immigrant who was serving as the Iowa and Iowa school superintendent.
Maryland registered him to vote through the DMV, and they never removed him even after he moved to Iowa.
And that was done through the DMV process.
And all that guy had to do was basically check a box and affirm that he was a U.S. citizenship.
And the state didn't ask any more questions.
He's still in the voter rolls today, even after he's been apprehended by ICE.
For much more on the group Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, you can find them at rightusa.org.
Justin Reamer is the president and CEO of that group.
Illegal Voter Rolls00:02:46
Appreciate your time this morning on the Washington Journal.
Thank you, John.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington and across the country.
Coming up this morning, the Washington Examiner's Christian Day Talk on the White House reaction to Homeland Security Funds expiring Friday and legislators' response to viewing the unredacted Epstein files.
Then, first-term Virginia Democratic Congressman James Walkinshaw will talk about the Friday deadline for DHS funding, the Epstein investigation, and other congressional news of the week.
And the chair of the Committee to Protect Journalists, Jacob Weisberg, on recent Trump administration actions and threats to First Amendment rights.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal, join in the conversation live at 7 Eastern this morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
Here's a look at our live coverage today on the C-SPAN networks.
At 11 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN, the House is in and will consider a voter ID bill, which would require citizens to provide photo identification to vote in federal elections.
On C-SPAN 2, at 7 a.m., British Prime Minister Kier Starmer takes questions from members of the House of Commons after he fired the UK's ambassador to the U.S. over his connection to Jeffrey Epstein.
At 10 a.m., Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies to the House Judiciary Committee and is expected to take questions on the DOJ's handling of the release of the Epstein files.
And then at 2, the Senate convenes to continue work on funding the Homeland Security Department, which many Democratic members say they will not support without reforms to immigration enforcement practices.
If there is a partial shutdown, however, ICE and CBP could still operate with funds provided by the tax and spending bill last summer.
On C-SPAN 3, at 10 a.m., top officials at the Homeland Security agencies that would lose funding if there is a shutdown, including FEMA, the Secret Service, and the Coast Guard, will testify on how it would impact their operations.
And at 3 p.m., senior enlisted leaders in the U.S. Armed Forces testify on the quality of life of service members and their families to a Senate committee.
You can also watch live coverage of these events on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, and online at c-span.org.
Immigration and customs enforcement officials, including acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, testified about the environment of increased threats agents are working in.
They also addressed the amount of time it takes to train an ICE officer and the law enforcement agents involved in the killings in Minnesota.