►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
As
usual,
our
goal
is
to
share
some
interesting
things
with
members
of
ncsl
and
also
we're
always
hoping
that
you'll
share
with
us.
What's
on
your
minds
and
what's
percolating
in
your
states,
we've
got
a
great
line
up
for
you
today,
but
while
we're
thinking
about
that,
if
you
all
could
just
put
something,
maybe
in
the
chat
about
something
election
related,
that's
on
your
mind,
something
that
you're
anticipating,
whether
that's
with
enthusiasm
or
or
dread.
I
don't
know
but
go
ahead
and
share
a
little
something
with
us.
A
If
you
would
so
for
our
lineup,
we
have
a
super
special
guest
which
I'm
pretty
excited
about.
I'm
excited
enough
about
the
fact
that
he's
with
us
that
I
sent
a
note
to
my
husband
and
asked
him
if
he
could
take
his
lunch
hour
and
listen
rather
than
eat
lunch
or
do
whatever
he
always
does
over
lunch.
A
And
after
that,
we'll
hear
from
christy
zamarripa
she's
going
to
share
with
us
about
the
redistricting
process
and
where
the
states
are,
and
ben
williams
is
going
to
talk
about
a
uniform
law
committee
that
he
has
is
participating
in
and
there's
a
possibility
that
some
of
you
might
want
to
have
more
knowledge
about
that
or
maybe
even
join
it
yourself
and
then
we'll
hear
from
mandy,
zach
and
sage
drager
about
the
preparations
that
our
elections
team
here
at
ncsl
is
doing
to
support
the
work
of
you
all
out
in
the
states
during
your
legislative
sessions.
A
So
let's
see
what
did
we
get
in
the
chat
we
didn't
get
people
redistricting
litigation
is
just
beginning
in
earnest.
Thanks
john
yeah.
I
I
can't
think
of
texas
and
redistricting
without
throwing
in
the
word
litigation
that
they
seem
to
go
hand
in
hand.
I
mean
it
took
you
the
whole
decade
last
time
around,
I
think,
to
get
through
it
and
hi
viviana
nice
to
have
you
here:
okay,
doug
doug
lewis.
A
He
has
served
for
20
years
as
the
executive
director
of
the
election
center
and,
if
you
don't
know
that
group,
it's
the
nation's
premier
group
supporting
the
work
of
election
officials
throughout
the
country.
From
a
professional
point
of
view,
it
is
nonpartisan
the
work
that
it
does
he's
retired.
At
this
point
he
also
served
as
the
eac's
first
chairman
of
its
advisory
commission,
and
he
served
on
that
committee.
A
I
should
say-
and
he
served
on
that
for
a
full
10
years
and
he's
also
received
a
ton
of
awards
which
I'm
not
going
to
tell
you
about.
For
me,
though,
doug
was
the
second
person
after
jeff
weiss
that
tim's
story
suggested
I
get
in
touch
with
when
I
came
to
ncsl.
So
for
those
of
you
who,
maybe
don't
know
tim,
is
our
executive
director.
He
hired
me
in
in
2010.
A
He
had
the
elections
and
redistricting
beat
at
that
point
and
now
he's
moved
on
to
wonderful
other
things
for
ncsl,
but
he
said
here's
who
you
need
to
talk
to
go
to
him
when
you
need
to
know
something
he'll
be
able
to
fill
you
in,
and
so
I
did
that
and
I
did
it
over
and
over
and
over
and
over
during
those
early
years,
and
that's
how
doug
and
I
became
friends,
I
guess
I'd
say-
and
I've
admired
him
ever
since
and
I'm
delighted
that
he's
still
in
my
life,
even
though
he's
retired
and
that
he's
still
thinking
about
elections
so
doug.
A
B
As
we
go
along,
you
know
the
I
was
20
years
at
the
election
center
and
I've
probably
spent
another
25
on
top
of
that
in
public
policy
work
and
usually
around
elections
and
what's
related
to
elections,
and
and
so
it's
not
sort
of
my
first
rodeo
and
yet
at
the
same
time,
I
will
tell
you
when
I
start
to
approach
something
like
this
for
all
of
you
who
are
going
to
have
to
be
involved
intimately
and
what
the
election
laws
are
going
to
be
in
your
states
and
and
how
you
want
the
political
process
to
work.
B
B
We've
come
to
the
point
that
we
are
questioning,
whether
or
not
it's
accurate,
whether
it's
honest,
whether
it's
fair,
whether
it's
structured
correctly
and
it's
not
just
one
side-
I
mean
both
sides
are
actually
you
know,
fighting
this
traditional
war
and
it's
part
of
the
reason
that
I
wanted
you
to
sort
of
read
the
article
whether
you
did
or
not
at
least
you've
got
it
and
and
can
read
it
at
your
own
leisure.
Look.
B
I've
been
around
long
enough
to
know
and
to
tell
you
that
this
happened
again.
This
happened
in
the
past.
It
happened
only
21
years
ago
when
we
had
election
2000
and
what
happened
at
that
point
was
we
had
the
closest
election
of
our
lifetimes
for
president
and
so
as
a
result,
no
matter
which
side
won
that
race.
B
The
other
side
was
going
to
be
unhappy
because
it
was
a
50-50
race
all
the
way,
and
so
what
we
had
was
the
democratic
party
was
the
party
who
was
aggrieved
at
that
point,
and
it
was
the
democratic
party
who
was
swearing.
The
process
was
broken
and
swearing.
The
process
was
rigged
and
swearing
that
elections,
officials
were
not
counting
ballots
correctly
and
that
other
people
were
trying
to
run
off
their
voters
and
and
right
on
down
the
line,
and
then
they
would
say
the
most
outrageous
things.
B
Let
me
give
you
a
for
instance,
of
our
outrageous
things.
Prominent
republic,
I
mean
democratic
legislators
from
the
u.s
house,
from
state
legislatures
from
the
u.s
senate
were
claiming
that
the
process
was
rigged,
and
then
they
pointed
out
one
of
their
biggest
ones
and
their
biggest
concern
was
ohio
and
that
ohio
had
to
be
rigged.
It
had
to
be
rigged
not
only
because
they
lost
it,
but
it
also
had
to
be
rigged
because
it
was
the
home
of
diebel
voting
systems
and
they
were.
B
They
were
absolutely
certain
that
diebold
was
rigging
the
election
within
the
voting
system
itself,
to
make
sure
that
the
votes
that
were
registering
for
their
candidate
actually
were
given
to
the
other
candidate,
and
we
had
people
who
were
serious
about
that
and
news
media
who
are
reporting
this
as
being
factually
accurate
and
it
wasn't
ohio's
of
all
the
ones.
To
make
an
example,
out
of
ohio
is
one
of
those
states
in
the
union
where
every
employee
of
the
elections
office
has
a
counterpart
of
the
other
party.
B
So
the
two
parties
have
equal
numbers
of
staff,
equal
jobs
and
for
them
to
rig
the
election
in
ohio.
It
would
mean
the
two
parties
had
to
get
together
to
rig
it
to
make
it
work,
and
so
we
went
through
this.
We
went
through
this
god-awful
cycle
in
2000
and
2004
in
the
election
process.
We
didn't
get
the
public
to
actually
believing
in
the
same
numbers
they
they
had
prior
to
2000,
to
believing
in
the
accuracy
of
elections
again
until
right,
around
2009,
and
then
it
got
a
whole
lot
better,
even
by
2012..
B
So
we've
been
through
this.
It's
not
it's,
not
a
news
cycle
now.
Having
said
that,
to
you
most
of
you
probably
weren't
around
in
that
time,
unless
you're
an
old
geezer
like
me,
you
know-
and
so
you
probably
didn't
get
to
see
all
of
that
happen
most
of
your
local
elections
administrators
also
were
not
around
at
that
time.
They
came
afterwards.
B
What
happened
as
a
result
of
that
distrust
of
the
process
and
that
enormous
focus
on
the
process
is
a
whole
lot
of
people
decided
to
retire.
Early
they'd
had
enough,
they
wanted
to
get
out,
and
so
we
had
a
generational
change
and
we've
still
got
some
of
those
people,
maybe
maybe
10
or
15
percent
of
those
were
here
in
election
2000,
but
I'm
guaranteeing
you
from
the
ones
I've
heard
from
they're
getting
ready
to
retire
as
a
result
of
this
election
because
they're
taking
enormous
abuse.
B
B
B
It
also
is
you
all
kind
of
have
to
ask
yourself:
why
did
you
get
involved
in
all
this?
What
is
you
didn't
get
involved
just
to
have
a
job
you
got
involved,
because
you
believed
that
you
could
do
good
for
society
that
you
could
make
government
work.
You
could
make
the
people
that
you
care
about
served
better
and,
if
that's
true-
and
if
that's
the
ultimate
reason
that
you
really
got
into
the
process,
then
you've
got
to
understand.
B
There
is
a
higher
calling
than
partisanship
the
process
itself
is
important,
and
if
we
destroy
the
process
by
constantly
attacking
it
from
both
sides
from
each
side's
viewpoint
of
why
they
think
they're
losing
or
what
they
think
the
process
is
rigged
to
do,
we
do
damage
to
the
process
itself
and
look
folks,
no
matter
what
anybody
tells
you.
If
people
lose
faith
in
the
elections
process,
they
cannot
believe
in
the
government
that
results
from
that
process.
There
is
no
way
you're
going
to
get
them
to
believe
in
the
legitimacy
of
the
people
who
get
elected.
B
We
have
to
have
for
this
for
us
to
maintain
democracy,
to
keep
democracy
to
make
it
work.
Well,
we
have
to
have
people
have
fundamental
faith,
that
this
thing
works
correctly
and
that
it
works
fairly
doesn't
mean
it's
going
to
always
end
up
in
the
result
that
they
want,
but
it
does
mean
that
we
we
know
that
we've
done
everything
we
can
to
run
a
fair
and
honest
and
accurate
election.
B
I
can
say
to
you
from
looking
at
all
the
arguments
that
have
been
made
on
the
republican
side.
At
this
point
there
has
not
been
any
proof,
or
at
least
enough
proof
to
convince
50
something
courts
and,
and
most
of
the
people
who
run
the
process
doesn't
matter
whether
the
election
administrators
belong
to
the
republican
party
or
the
democratic
party
or
nonpartisan.
B
They
all
will
tell
you.
The
process
worked
like
the
process
was
designed
now
did
we
do
some
things
in
the
last
election
that
we
hadn't
done
before
well
code
covet
mandated
that
we
change
a
whole
bunch
of
stuff
and
people
pounced
on
that,
and
they
had
us
doing
things
quite
frankly
that
were
stressing
the
system
for
all
of
you
to
know
when
we
moved
from
about
a
hundred
and
eighty
years
of
our
elections.
Being
you
vote
on
a
piece
of
paper,
you
count
that
piece
of
paper
or
you
vote
on.
B
B
Then
we
moved
to
early
voting
and
we
added
that
on
not
as
a
replacement
for
the
other
stuff
we
added
it
on.
Then
we
decided
that
gosh
mail
balloting
looks
like
that's
a
pretty
good
deal.
Well,
why
don't?
We
have
the
elections?
Officers
just
add
that
on
too
and
so
now
your
elections
offices
are
running
three
or
four
election
processes,
all
within
the
same
time
frame
that
they
used
to
1-1.
B
B
It
was
senator
torricelli
out
of
new
jersey,
who
came
to
me
first
in
election
2000
in
the
aftermath
and
said:
can
you
help
us
put
something
together
and
he
got
his
counterpart,
mitch,
mcconnell
and
so
between
mitch,
mcconnell
and
torricelli?
We
started
sitting
down
with
our
staffs
to
talk
about
how
to
get
through
that
we
moved
over
into
the
house
side,
steny
hoyer
who's.
B
Now
the
number
two
guy
in
the
democratic
party
at
the
time
was
head
of
the
elections
committee
in
the
u.s
house
and
bob
may
was
also
on
the
republican
side,
and
so
those
two
we
also
sat
down
and
worked,
and
we
worked
with
their
staff
over
many
many
months
to
come
up
with.
How
do
we
fix
these
problems
and
how
do
we
rebuild
faith
in
these
problems?
B
Now?
I
can't
tell
you
the
names
of
some
folks,
I'm
not
going
to
give
them
credit,
because
to
give
them
credit
would
cause
problems
with
their
own
parties.
I
will
say
to
you:
we
had
enough
good
americans
in
the
united
states
congress
who
were
willing
to
defy
their
own
party
stalwarts
in
order
to
not
allow
certain
things
to
change
that
was
desired
by
some
party
stallers,
and
so
that
to
me
meant
that
we
still
had
people
who
understood.
B
If
we
break
the
system,
we
don't
have
a
system.
If
we
lose
faith
in
the
system,
people
then
start
looking
for
something
other
than
democracy,
and
if
we
can,
you
know
we
tend
to
because
we've
grown
up
with
democracy.
We
tend
to
think
that's
the
normal
course
of
deal
in
the
200
000
years
of
homo
sapiens.
Sapiens
we've
had
the
longest
democracy
that
survived
the
greeks,
had
it
from
about
508
bc
to
roughly
385
bc,
not
uninterrupted.
B
They
had
democracy
and
lost
it.
The
the
romans
had
in
the
roman
republics.
They
had
democracy
for
a
while
and
they
lost
it,
and
then
it
disappears
from
the
planet
for
roughly
two
thousand
years
before
we
start
again,
that's
incredible
folks:
let's
don't
go
another
two
thousand
years
without
a
democracy,
and
so
where
I
am
in.
This
is
asking
you
to
think
beyond
what
your
bosses
will
probably
want
you
to
think
about
think
beyond
what
your
political
parties
will
want
you
to
think
about
and
to
think
about.
B
How
do
we
get
what
we
want
without
destroying
the
system
itself,
and
how
do
we
do
right
by
democracy
and
its
processes
and
its
electoral
administrative
functions
without
destroying,
because
we
want
to
make
a
political
point
in
that
article,
you
will
see
that
I
have
gone
to
the
tenets
of
the
republican
party
and
the
tenants
of
the
democratic
party
and
each
time
each
and
every
election
cycle.
We
hear
the
same
language
and
you
begin
to
tell
people
often
enough
that
the
system
is
rigged
against
our
folks
pretty
soon.
They
all
begin
to
believe
it.
B
A
A
For
me,
what
I'm
thinking
about
is
that
when
laws
are
being
put
together
at
the
state
level,
the
legislators
are
often
thinking
about.
How
can
this
be
uniform
across
my
state
and
so
first
of
all,
do
we
think
that
laws
should
be
uniform
across
individual
states,
but
then
why
does
that
not
work?
When
you
go
up
a
level
I
mean,
I
think
we
could
probably
all
agree
on
this
call
that
we
do
not
want
uniforms
election
laws
across
the
nation,
but
what's
the
difference,
if
we're,
why
is
that
categorically
different?
Well.
B
B
The
the
problem
for
for
me
and
from
my
standpoint
and
looking
at
how
do
you
run
elections
that
are
really
difficult
to
manipulate,
is
in
a
top-down
democracy,
which
is
what
almost
all
the
democracies
of
the
world
are
you
can.
All
you
got
to
do
is
control
a
certain
number
of
people
and
processes,
and
you
can
indeed
manipulate
an
election
here
in
the
united
states,
where
you've
got
roughly
eight
thousand
separate
jurisdictions
that
are
involved
in
a
presidential
election
to
actually
rig
outcomes.
B
B
B
I
didn't
see
any
real
value
to
having
the
federal
government
take
over
all
those
functions
and,
quite
frankly,
when
most
elections
in
the
united
states
are
not
federal
elections,
we
run
so
many
more
elections
than
federal
elections.
So
why
should
the
federal
process
to
elect
federal
people
affect
everything
we
do
at
every
level?
It
seems
to
me
that
doesn't
make
sense.
B
We
can
design
better
processes
where
we're
closer
to
the
people
closer
to
knowing
what
really
works
for
us
and
what
our
people
like
now.
Having
said
that
bush
v
gore
as
a
result
of
election
2000
said
states
need
to
have
uniform
application
within
the
state's
borders,
and
this
is
where
we
get
into
trouble
when
some
local
jurisdiction
decides
to
deviate
from
what's
available
to
all
the
other
jurisdictions
of
the
state.
B
For
instance,
if
you
make
a
decision
that
you're
going
to
accept
ballots
passed
when
everybody
else
does-
or
you
make
a
decision
that
your
polls
are
going
to
be
open
longer
than
anybody
else
in
your
state,
then
you've
denied
equal
due
process
to
the
other
members
of
your
state
and
and
that's
where
bush
v
gore
said,
look
no
matter
what
you
do.
We
doesn't
have
to
be
the
same
all
over
the
country,
but
within
your
state's
borders.
B
It's
got
to
be
the
same
way
you
can't
do
for
for
some
that
you
don't
do
for
all,
and
so
that's
where
we
are
and
that's
and
and
that
was
a
good
ruling.
As
far
as
I
was
concerned,
I
thought
they.
I
thought
they
did
a
really
nice
job
of
figuring.
This
out,
you
can
argue
all
day
long
about
the
outcome
of
who
was
decided
to
be
president,
but
I
looked
less
at
that
because
in
our
case,
in
our
case,
most
of
the
time
we're
praying
just
let
the
winners
win
big,
you
know.
A
Got
it
that
was
great,
so
I
had
two
other
questions,
sort
of
lined
up
for
you
and
they
kind
of
maybe
dovetail
and
one
is
you
know.
You've
talked
about
the
enactment
of
hava
and
you
said
that
you
had
people
from
both
chambers
from
both
parties
and
you
and
presumably
other
people
in
the
election
administration
community
working
on
the
details.
Well,
so
here
it
is
2020,
oh
no
we're
in
2022
now
and
we've
got
bills
that
are
kind
of
floating
around
out
there.
A
We
don't
know
if
any
of
them
are
going
to
land,
there's
the
filibuster
and
all
that,
but
it's
not,
but
but
I'm
not
I'm
not
experiencing
a
sense
of
the
election
administration
community
being
involved.
In
those
conversations
it
feels
like
it's
happening
entirely
in
a
partisan
world
and
then
how
is
the
partisan
world
different
now
than
it
was
in
2000?.
B
B
The
two
parties,
the
the
probably
the
most
partisan
of
each
of
the
two
parties,
becomes
very
similar
in
some
respects.
They
want
to
tell
people
exactly
how
to
do
it
and
how
to
do
it
their
way
and
only
their
way
and
no
other
deviations
from
that
that
rarely
works
quite
frankly
in
administrative
practices.
B
What
is
going
on
now
is
clearly
an
attempt
at
each
level,
some
at
the
state
level,
some
at
the
federal
level
to
counteract
each
other
to
set
the
stage
that
we
can
control
it.
The
way
we
want
it
and
we
can
define
who
gets
to
do
what,
and
so
I
truth,
the
matter
is
I've
never
been
in
favor
of
the
feds
running
this
stuff.
At
one
point,
I
I
quite
frankly
offered
to
all
of
them
that
we
would
hand
over
the
keys
and
let
them
run
their
own
darned
elections.
B
You
know,
because
states
are
not
required
to
run
the
federal
elections,
there's
no
requirement
anywhere.
That
requires
us
to
do
that,
and
so
we
were
on
ours.
You
run
yours,
you
do
it
the
way
you
want
to
for
them,
and-
and
you
know
other
nations
do
that.
I
mean
canada
just
to
our
north.
You
know
they
they
run
their
own,
and
so
that's
fine
go
do
that.
B
You
know,
if
that's
what
you
want
to
do,
but
I
get
a
little
frustrated
with
because
most
of
the
time
when
they
do
this,
they're
not
looking
to
do
what's
right
for
the
process,
they're
looking
to
do
what's
right
for
their
party,
you
know,
and-
and-
and
we
see
that
again
we
see
that
within
some
state
government
anywhere
you've
got
control
of
the
process
by
one
party.
There
is
always
an
attempt
to
change
everything
so
that
it
favors
us
well.
B
A
All
right,
so
I'm
going
to
ask
a
question
from
jennifer
jackson,
but
representative
mckamey.
I
wonder
if
you,
you
might
be
feeling
a
little
bit
like
you're
in
the
hot
seat,
because
you're,
an
elected
legislator,
an
elected
representative,
so
I'll
call
on
you
in
a
moment.
If
you'd
like
to
come
on
and
talk
a
little
bit
about
this
too,
so
jennifer
asks
you
doug
as
nonpartisan
staff.
We
love
process.
How
does
the
narrative
get
changed
in
the
media
where
it
seems
to
affect
the
vast
majority
of
people?
I
know.
B
Unfortunately,
I
think
what
happens
is
we
now
have
camps
within
media
too?
We've
got
tribes,
you
know
it's
not
just
the
tribes
that
we
have
that
are
called
political
parties
or
philosophical
beliefs.
We've
also
got
tribes
inside
of
the
news
media
themselves
and
and
those
tribes
support
their
tribes.
You
know,
and
so
what
we're
looking
at
is.
B
You
can
have
cnn
or
msnbc
saying
one
thing
and
you
can
have
fox
saying
something
totally
completely
different
and
both
are
impacting
publics,
not
always
the
same
publics
but
publix
and
they're,
making
it
as
if
theirs
is
the
only
answer,
and
so
we
get
the
drum
beat
going.
B
It
gets
a
little
hard,
sometimes
I
think,
for
elected
officials
to
stand
up
to
their
partisans
and
or
to
media
who
are
misguided
in
this.
But
I
I've
worked
in
this
long
enough.
Over
the
years
I
have
found
most
of
the
men
and
women,
particularly
within
local
governments
and
at
state
government
level.
I
found
most
of
them
intend
to
do
the
right
thing.
B
A
B
When
the
the
in
terms
of
voting
systems
when
to
make
changes
and
all
that,
I
honestly
am
one
of
those-
I
would
prefer
that
they
always
be
tested
first
in
small
elections
before
you
go,
do
major
elections.
You
know
it
seems
to
me
if
we're
not
ready
for
this
election.
Great,
that's,
okay!
B
I
I
would
say
to
you
also
in
terms
of
election
laws
or
election
procedure
changes.
Anything
that
happens
within
the
last
180
days
ought
to
be
outlawed.
We
can't
make
changes
after
180
days
out.
We
need
that
time
to
make
sure
the
election
goes
smoothly,
and
so,
let's
don't
be
changing
processes.
Let's
don't
be
changing
rules,
let's
don't
be
changing
procedures.
B
B
We
have
gone
through
god-awful
things,
both
as
a
country
and
within
elections
over
all
the
time
that
we've
run
elections,
we
have
figured
out
how
to
bounce
back
from
those
we
figured
out
how
to
and
americans
are
pretty
resilient
in
terms
of
if
we
made
a
mistake
in
who
we
voted
for
last
time,
we'll
figure
it
out
and
we'll
try
to
change
that,
and,
and
so
that
works
out
pretty
well
and
and
most
of
the
time.
So
I'm
not
one
of
those
who
say
well
the
old
days
were
better,
you
know,
maybe
they
were.
B
A
Well,
thank
you
very
much
doug.
I
am
going
to
take
the
one
word.
If
I
hold
one
word
the
rest
of
the
day,
it's
going
to
be
resilience,
so
I'm
going
to
end
on
that
positive
note.
Now
we
would
love
to
have
you
stay
a
lot
round
if
you'd
like
to,
but
we're
going
to
it's
also.
Okay,
if
you
want
to
disappear.