Preborn has helped to rescue over 67,000 babies through ultrasounds

Jenna Ellis: Because of listeners like you, PreBorn has helped to rescue over 67,000 babies. Your $28 to sponsor one ultrasound doubled a baby's chance at life. Your tax deductible gift saves lives. Please join us in this mission. To donate, go to preborn.com afr Jenna. Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview, the U.S. constitution obligates our government preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you. And God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.

Australia is considering a social media ban for children under 18

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Thursday, December 11, and if you, like me, are on social media chronically and you see, everything that is going on, the good, the bad and the ugly, and mostly bad and ugly, quite frankly, there is something that Australia is doing about it. They have been in the works for a social media ban for children or for minors under the age of 18, to not allow them to use social media. So according to the BBC and some of the teens interviewed, they say that it's insulting to think that we handle it. But another expert, Jonathan Hate, Haydee Hayden, or Hate, I think, I'm, not sure how he pronounces his last name, who wrote, several best selling books actually about why, parents need to rid their children of these devices. He, says, according to the Herald sun, expert declares Australia's social media ban is the most significant child protection measure ever. he said what Australia did by far is by far the biggest thing it has ever, been done to protect children. It dwarfs everything else we can mess around with making algorithms safer for eight year olds, we can mess around with content moderation. But none of that stuff is going to move the needle. Whatever the difficulties. And of course there will be difficulties in implementing this. It's a very bold law. But whatever the difficulties, imagine not doing it. He, goes on to say, imagine that we condemn the rest of humanity. We condemn the kids who are infants today and we condemn them to growing up scrolling and watching short videos and falling in love with AI companions and not living life in the world. If Australia didn't do this, or if Australia doesn't succeed and we stick with business as usual, I think the effect on humanity is incalculable. So it has to be done.

Other countries are considering a similar Ah, ban for minors on social media

so now other countries are considering a similar Ah, ban for minors. So let's welcome in Patrick Hedger, who is the Net Choice Director of Policy. And Patrick, you know, what side do you agree on? I mean, I think that 16 year olds and younger of course are going to suggest that they can handle it. They can, they love social media obviously, which is maybe why adults need to step in and intervene.

Patrick Hedger: Yeah, and I think you hit the nail on the head there. adults, that is the parents need to step in and intervene in these cases. We've got to be very, very careful. About replacing parents with the state. And that's what Australia has done. And Australia, as we saw during the COVID pandemic, is one of the bigger nanny states that's out there. and I think it's really concerning to see this happening. But fortunately in the United States we. And as the intro to your show laid out so nicely, we have inalienable rights that are protected by the Constitution here in the United States. And ultimately people that are under, under 18 still have rights to access lawful and legal speech. And while there are plenty of things online that kids should be prevented from accessing, by their parents and by parental controls, there are a lot of good things online as well. A lot of access to important communities, information. And if we expect young adults or if we expect kids, teenagers to turn 18 and participate in society and vote, we shouldn't be depriving them of access to information about their communities, which is often happening now on social media services.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and I think that's a really fair point. I mean obviously advocates, you know, like this Dr. Haid who is, is an advocate for getting kids just completely offline. he's you know, talking about, I think one of his books, you know, was, was talking about how it's just the chronically online generation. really he does need to be speaking more to the parents. obviously there is some content that if you're a minor under 18, there are laws and restrictions in place for things like, you know, pornography or violence or you know, some other things. And so where should the line be drawn between what the state can prevent minors from accessing versus parental rights and discretion?

Patrick Hedger: Yeah, I think we should err on parental rights as much as possible in the US right now. Law reflects that the state can intervene and block minors from accessing or require age verification for law for content that is unlawful for minors to see. So pornography to your example. but what we're talking about here is social Media. And these social media sites do invest tremendous amounts of resources in combating, pornography, using AI systems, for example, to identify it before anybody ever sees when it gets uploaded. and so what I'm really concerned here with is the fact that if you are putting in place laws like this, companies like Meta and companies like Google and YouTube will comply, but other parts of the Internet won't necessarily. And what you're doing is potentially driving kids, when they are online away from services that are trying to keep a, you know, a clean feed, to places where they may be accessing worse content and may be more exposed to bad actors online, because they don't have any sort of footprint in Australia or whatever jurisdiction does this, and there's no recourse. And so that's, that's something that really concerns me is the unintended effects of things like this. The idea that there is some sort of silver bullet to replace, and solve for bad parenting, is, I think a foolish, is a, is a foolish endeavor.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. and to your point, I mean it's always going to be, more difficult for the government to step in and try to, you know, have these types of regulations in replacement of good parenting. And yet when we do see that there are so many teens, I mean even here in the United States, there are so many examples of online bullying, there's so much content that, that kids access anyways, even to the point of, you know, the content that is currently, unaccessible for minors here. I mean, I don't personally think that the, and I mean data could tell me otherwise. But you know, it doesn't seem to me that on websites, for example, that you have to be, over 21, like if it's an alcohol purchase website or something and you just enter your date of birth, well, there's no real identification or verification of that. The user isn't just putting in something and they're actually under that age. And so, what are the guardrails that the United States should adopt? Because I think that the issues that Australia at least portends to, to address, I mean, whether this is a pretext for being Big Brother and they're out to get, you know, everybody's identification and some of those very valid concerns, at least the idea of trying to protect children, is a good thing overall. And so what are some steps that are still in line, here in America with the constitutional protections of parental rights and also children's rights?

Patrick Hedger: Yeah, so I think that's a really good way to frame it. What is in line with the Constitution here in the United States, and that is the government itself also has speech rights. The government must protect speech rights, but it has speech rights of its own. So the government can do a lot in terms of this is either state or local governments or the federal government in terms of promoting online safety information. Perhaps having online safety curriculums in schools. We have sex education, we have driver's education in schools. There's no reason we shouldn't have online safety education as well. Kids are going to be online the rest of their lives. whether they get online at 16, or if they get online at 14 or at 18, they're going to be online the rest of their lives. That's where our economy is at this point. so we should be teaching kids not just how to, avoid harmful, potentially harmful content, but also avoid scams and fraud and things like that. that is something that is well within the domain of US Law and.

Patrick Hedger: Is okay to do.

Patrick Hedger: is more than okay to do. The state should be doing that. States like Florida have actually adopted social media safety curriculums. The state can also ban cell phones in schools. that I think is well within the rights of the state to be able to do. I remember growing up, my middle school was not in a great area. We weren't allowed to have backpacks. There was no constitutional issue there. So certainly banning a smart device as well is fine. But ultimately it's about empowering parents, teaching parents where the parental controls exist. They exist at every level of the Internet, whether that is your Internet service provider, your cellular carrier, your cable provider, the device itself, or the platform, which is the website, YouTube and Facebook. They all have parental controls. You can put those on, at all levels. But ultimately we should be m. Empowering parents because if you think about films, the rating system is a guide for parents. If a parent chooses to say, Saving Private Ryan is an appropriate film that I want to show my child, we're going to let parents do that. And I think we need to be preserving that in other types of media.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I'm speaking with Patrick Hedger, who is the NetChoice director of policy. And, you know, really, if more parents were responsible, then, you know, we wouldn't have, as many of the issues that the state then thinks it has to come in and intervene and have, you know, some of these guardrails and, you know, and to your point, I mean, I grew up in, in the era where in some of my law school classes we couldn't have laptops because it was considered a distraction and so you had to like hand take notes. And I think that era has largely passed. But you know, and of course we were adults in at the time. But you know that that was completely at the professor's discretion and it wasn't a matter of you know, anyone suggesting that that was a violation of a constitutionally protected right. but with the growth of technology, especially artificial intelligence and some of these things that both parents and also school teachers, whether it's state funded education, private or even homeschool, there's going to be a growing concern, and there already is with some of these tools like artificial intelligence, having children be who are growing up in this era, I mean they have to learn, in my opinion they need to learn the, the good ways of using some of these tools like ChatGPT for example, but still learn the analysis, still learn how to determine what data is factual, not just Google search and believe the top headline. And so some of these things when kids are younger and it's good for parents and teachers to teach them the appropriate uses and context of some of these tools. And so, you know, what is the line there in your opinion in terms of some of the ways that even here in the U.S. a lot of public schools are looking at, you know, banning AI, some universities are looking at banning AI. Do you think we need to come up with maybe a different way of getting testing students and even up into university level?

Patrick Hedger: Yeah, that's a great question. And I think it gets at a point that undercuts a lot of these one size fits all laws, which is not all kids are the same, not all kids learn the same way. and that's why it is so important to have engaged parents and engaged educators for every single child and not assume that some sort of blanket ban for everybody under 16 is going to work for, for everybody. that and when it comes to education, we're finding that AI tutoring systems can create a really unique experience for each individual that's using it because it learns based off of the user. and so that's improving educational outcomes where you have AI that's incorporated into helping kids learn those critical thinking skills, helping them learn those math and science skills. we certainly don't want AI to be replacing that, but we can use it to enhance that. And I also think it's unrealistic, to say that we want to have an education system that is devoid of AI. What an education system is trying to do, is supposed to do is get kids ready for the world that exists. And I can tell you m Fortune 500 enterprises are increasingly incorporating AI and they need workers that know how to utilize AI. And so there is a balance there that needs to be struck. But that balance is not completely ripping AI and these super valuable tools out of the system altogether. that would be like taking, saying that, well, we need to take away Google search or we need to take away laptops themselves. I mean, these types of technologies have improved educational outcomes, if they're used in the right way.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And to your point, I mean, not all kids who go through university are studying the same thing.

Patrick Hedger: I think it's more responsible to educate kids about technology

I mean, what an engineer, needs and the tools that an engineer would need to perform his or her job is going to look very different, than a lawyer or, a doctor or someone who's majoring in literature. I mean, there are a lot of different tools, that are available. And to your point, I think it's, more responsible to educate, kids how to best utilize these tools and work within the framework of what's available instead of just a total outright, ban. And I think that, you know, like we used to have the, the old era of the calculators being banned in math class because teachers were saying, you're never going to have a calculator in your pocket 24 7. Well, that proved to be false. And, you know, we all do now. And because our smartphone has all of those capabilities, so, you know, it's thinking about these issues more critically and ensuring that overall parental rights and children's rights are also protected. So, Patrick Hedger, really appreciate your commentary this morning. you can follow NetChoice on X and we will be right back with more.

Preborn Network helps women choose life through a free ultrasound

We're living in a time when truth is under attack. Lies are easy to tell, easy to spread, and easy to believe. But truth, truth is costly. And nowhere is the cost greater than for mothers in crisis. When a woman is told abortion is her only option, silence and lies surround her. But when she walks into a preborn Network clinic, she's met with compassion, support, and the truth about the growing life inside her. That moment of truth happens through a free ultrasound, and it's a game changer. When a mother sees her baby and hears that heartbeat, it literally doubles the chance she will choose life. Preborn network clinics are on the front lines, meeting women in their darkest hour, loving them, helping them choose life. And sharing the truth. Friend, this is not the time to be silent. It is the time for courage, for truth and for life. Just $28 provides one ultrasound and the opportunity for a mother to see her baby. To help her choose truth and choose life. Please donate today. Call £250 and say baby. That's £250, baby. Or give online@ah preborn.com afr that's preborn.com afr.

Supreme Court lets Texas use gerrymandered map ahead of 2026 elections

Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, as conservatives are getting increasingly frustrated with a do nothing Congress and concerned with the upcoming midterms that now President Trump has started to stump for, and even though he's not on the ballot, how is all of this going to shape out? Well, the gerrymandered maps could give the GOP a win in spite of what appears to be their total intention to lose. So coming from npr, the Supreme Court lets Texas use gerrymandered map that could give the GOP five more House seats. So this is all about redistricting. And the Supreme Court has cleared the way for Texas to use a new congressional map that could help Republicans win five more U.S. house seats in the 2026 midterm election. The decision released last Thursday boosts the GOP's chances of preserving its slim majority in the House of Representatives amid an unprecedented gerrymandering fight launched. this is according to NPR by President Trump, who has been pushing Texas and other GOP led states to redo, redraw their congressional districts to benefit Republicans. And of course, Republicans are pushing back on that and saying, well, the redistricting is simply redrawing the maps to reflect the voting electorate and not give an advantage to the Democrats. And clearly the Supreme Court is siding with them. But how is all of this going to shake down? Well, let's welcome in Oren McIntyre who is a host at the Blaze. And Oren, it just, you know, it's really hilarious to me that in spite of everything the GOP is doing to lose the midterms, it might be redistricting that saves them.

Yeah, obviously you prefer that, the wins that the GOP had secured, the legislation they had pushed through, all the incredible nominees that ultimately get assigned, those would all be the feathers in the cat that push the GOP forward. But of course, the one thing the GOP usually doesn't do is luckily the one thing that might save them this time, which is look for systemic advantages. It's great to win the argument, but you also need to make sure that you have a mechanical advantage in the operation of the election. And usually the GOP just sits on the sidelines when it comes to really fighting for those edges. So it is nice to see that ultimately, if the GOP can't end up with those additional seats just through the redistricting, process, they're going to have hopefully enough, to pull them through what otherwise might be, lackluster, achievements when it comes to legislative. The legislative affairs.

Auron MacIntyre: Yeah.

Jenna Ellis: And so, you know, give us kind of the big picture too, of how much could redistricting. Because this isn't just Texas. I mean, here in Florida, you know, Governor DeSantis is pushing, for redistricting here. You know, there are multiple states doing this. So how much could redistricting, if everything goes through as Republicans are, ah, planning, how could this realistically reshape the 2026 house landscape?

Patrick Hedger: Well, like you said, Missouri also gets added in there, it looks like. And so there are several different areas in which Republicans, are looking to gain multiple seats. And of course this is going to make everything much easier to push those majorities or at least maintain a slim majority if all of that goes through. Again, it's great to win on those arguments, but you really want to make sure that in many places, once you've kind of correctly assembled the district, once you've got the right percentages of voters, you're more or less guaranteed certain positions. And those automatic seats are really the ones you lean on in many cases. You don't want to have to win every single, hotly contested seat. You don't have to pour millions of dollars into expensive media markets and races and put all of that effort. You want to be able to save that for those very specific, very intense and critical races. So the more automatic seats you can accrue through something like redistricting, the better. So not only are you picking up those seats that you can feel very confident, you're also freeing up more energy, more money, more narrative, more resources for those hotly contested seats.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah.

Do you expect redistricting to be motivating issue for voters heading into midterm elections

And I'm speaking with Oren McIntyre, is a host at the Blaze. And do you expect redistricting to be a motivating issue for voters, or is this kind of just the inside baseball, the setup? And voters, are actually looking at issues like, you know, the Democrats are pushing this term affordability, which I want to get to. but, you know, they're looking at the economy, they're looking at border, you know, they're looking at, you know, basically, ah, substantive issues and redistricting is maybe just looked at as kind of the process of how we get to who's on the ballot.

Yeah, it's very much a how a sausage is made scenario. Most people understand at some level that redistricting matters. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp about how a district votes and how the proportions and the lines drawn end up, massaging, the demographics and other issues that are going to lead to outcomes. But as you say, most people ultimately don't want to think about politics in that terms. They're not looking very hard at exactly where the line was drawn within any given district. What they care about is the fact that they can't pay their mortgage and there are too many illegal immigrants in their area and their schools are overcrowded and it's difficult for them to get health care and they can't get car insurance. These are all things that people focus on far more at the end of the day once it comes around to the actual election season. So the media will talk about the evils of redistricting? Oh no, the Republicans are racist. They're drawing these racist districts to eliminate minority representation. You're going to get all of those stories. The media will play up that aspect. But ultimately I don't think any of that really translates to the average voter, at least not one that wasn't already going to vote Democrat in the first place. What they're looking at is what's the cost of eggs, what is the cost of gas? Can I buy a house? These are the things that they're actually caring about. What is crime like in my neighborhood?

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so, you know, when we turn to these substantive issues then, because I think you're right that you know, while redistricting is, it is very important obviously for Republicans ahead of the midterms. I think Democrats think it's, it's important, because you know, if they're losing seats, obviously that's important to them, but you know, that's not really going to affect what, the substantive issues that voters are focused on. And so how do you think, that that plays a part, in this, when Democrats have clearly chosen this term affordability as the message that they're largely overall running on. And Trump kind of, you know, in some of his, his speeches has, has really, kind of slammed that. And I think, that he's rightly slamming what the Democrats are trying to do with that. But do you think that, the Democrats message overall, when you look at the economy and how frustrated, especially the younger voters are that this message from the Democrats is going to resonate. Or is, are the Republicans pushback so far effective?

I think that they should take this seriously. I think Trump and the Republicans should take this Democrat push seriously. the, one of the reasons that Joe Biden was pushed out, or I guess, you know, obviously Kamala Harris ends up, not getting elected, is that, the Biden administration really sat, around and kind of mocked the idea that inflation and prices were out of control. You know, oh, what do you mean? You need eggs and you need, you know, gallons of milk. You know, that, that, that, that's fine. As long as, you know, some other, program is getting paid for, we don't really care. That was the attitude they had over and over again towards the American people. And it was not great. It was definitely one of the things that contributed to, that loss. Trump came in on the idea, among other things, that he would be working on inflation, he would be working on wages, he'd be working on making things more affordable. Now, obviously, there's only so much you can do when you have available to pass most of these things through Congress. And ultimately there have been that long in office to completely change the ship when it comes to monetary policy, inflation, everything else. But people don't care. They don't take those excuses. They look at their pocketbook, they look at what they can afford, they look at rising prices and they say, this is a problem and you're the president and you're supposed to solve it. Even if that doesn't make sense, even if Trump is still dealing with the after effects of the last administration. So I think that the GOP does need to take it seriously. Not because Democrats have the right answers, but they are asking questions that I think the electorate is going to want to hear answered. And if the Trump administration doesn't deliver, they might decide to put someone else in charge.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and, and this is where I think the Democrats have focused on affordability because they recognize that there is a lot of frustration with the current Republican Congress. And, you know, yeah, they passed the one big beautiful bill. But, you know, at least, in terms of the economy, the average family isn't really feeling any sort of relief, from inflation or from some of these high prices. I mean, every time I go to the store, I mean, everything is always, a price increase. there are, there are genuine concerns.

Some Republicans are looking at Congress as stalling Trump's agenda

And this gets into, a conversation I was having yesterday, as well, or that I'd like your take on. Because some, some Republicans, or at least, you know, the MAGA conservatives, are looking at Congress as just stalling Trump's agenda. And especially with this vote, last night that 13 Republicans sided with Democrats to overturn one of Trump's executive orders and basically side with unions. this is just lending more evidence to the theory that the establishment, Republicans are trying purposefully to just stall Trump's agenda or even overturn it, and perhaps lose the midterms intentionally so that Democrats can get back in. And obviously there would be an impeachment of Trump. It would be just a total circus for the last two years. And that, that would cause a crippling effect on the overall MAGA legacy and whoever Trump might seek to appoint as his heir apparent or his successor. And then Republicans could kind of get back to business as usual. And this kind of assumes that there's a grandiose plan, but at the same time, I think there's potentially some merit to that.

Yeah, no, I actually put a lot of stock in that theory. I think if we look at what has been happening in the GOP over the last few months, it's very clear that along with controversy and obviously the tragic death of Charlie Kirk and everything else that has gone into these discussions, it's very clear that there is a resurgent, kind of establish it establishment, neoconservative wing of the party that sees, okay, Trump is in the second term. He may, he's maybe heading towards a lame duck, you know, Congress, maybe now is the time for us to step in, cause all this divisiveness and clean all those MAGA guys that have pushed this, you know, these establishment figures out. Let's, let's clean them out of the party and return back to power. We can see that it's not just in Congress. Different institutions like the Heritage foundation and ISI are having, you know, kind of mini coups inside those organizations trying to remove Trump loyalists, MAGA loyalists inside of them. And then when we look what's happening with Congress, it becomes clear that if Trump doesn't get an agenda passed, if there isn't additional steps taken before Congress is lost, if it is lost, then ultimately you're going to have a scenario where many of the promises of MAGA cannot be fulfilled. And it would be very difficult for an error like JD Vance to then come in on the momentum of a successful Trump second term, effectively killing the MAGA legacy and having everyone searching around for an answer. And I think the established Republicans will say, well, guess what? We've got an answer. Mitt Romney and John McCain. We're right back to where we started.

Jenna Ellis: And, it's just so infuriating. It's like they've learned nothing about the base, but I think, you know, they just don't care to because it's different than how they would run the party. And so what's the answer to that? I mean, obviously, Trump only has, so much authority as the president. But, you know, we do have Speaker Mike Johnson. I mean, allegedly, he's. He's in. He's in power as the speaker and can try to whip people instead of just, you know, as I've called him lately, just the, you know, kind of counselor and therapist of the Congress as he seems to be acting. I mean, what. What are he and John Thune actually doing to try to get the Republican coalition together to, instead of focusing on themselves and, their own power, wishes to actually accomplish things for the American people that put them there to begin with.

Well, you know, at some point, if you want, you might have seen this, you know, team, before, the Harlem Globetrotters, right? Like, they're this fake team that goes around and does basketball, tricks, and they play this other team that the Washington Generals, who is designed to lose, right? That's all they do is lose to the Harlem Globetrotters. They only exist to make them look good. And if at some point you watch the Harlem Globetrotters, win over and over and over and over again, then you have to assume eventually that the purpose of the Washington Generals is to lose. If the GOP loses over and over and over again and only seems to make the Democrats look good, then you have to ask, are these players actually playing to win? And I don't really understand how we can look at the congressional leadership of the Republican Party and pretend like they are ultimately there to win the game. It looks more like they are there just to make the Democrats look good, just there to stand in as fake opposition. I don't think that these gentlemen are actually leading the party towards any kind of real victory. I don't think that bothers them particularly. They know they're there for the game. They're there for the procedure. They're not there to take home victories for the American people. And that's a tough thing to look at as Republicans. But I don't know how we can watch what's going on in Congress and come to any other conclusion. Trump still has many, many, nominees who are languishing. Guys like Jeremy Carl, who are incredibly talented, would be incredible assets and yet somehow are not being confirmed by a Republican Senate. If our own party won't confirm our own president's nominees this late into a presidency, what are we doing here?

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, what are we doing, I think is, is the question. And it's becoming more and more evident, especially, through the months of the government shutdown when Republicans could have ended at any time and they just simply chose not to. it is, it is very apparent that they don't actually want to govern, they don't want to lead. they just want to be there for their own purposes. And yet, people keep electing them again anyway. And do you think in just the last minute we have with you or in McIntyre, do you think that that's largely due just to how much money is put, behind these types of people? Lack of a good primary opponent or, you know, I mean, everybody's been talking for years and years that Lindsey Graham needs to be primaried and, you know, but there he is. And, and we could have 100 different other examples.

Yeah, I mean, it's really just a question of systemic advantage. If you look, everyone, says they hate Congress. Right.

If you look, the approval ratings from Congress are regularly in the single digits, but the incumbency rate is usually 80 to 90%. And so it's just an insane difference where these people get elected over and over because the system is designed to perpetuate them even though they are deeply unpopular for the American people.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, Oren McIntyre really appreciate it and we need to be, better as conservative leaders with, hopefully addressing some of these issues. But, we'll continue to talk more about this when we come right back with more here on Jenna Ellis in the Morning. Foreign.

Group behind a referendum to block Missouri's gerrymandering have gathered 300,000 signatures

Welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, as the GOP is figuring out their messaging and Democrats are focused on affordability and all of those things ahead of the 2026 midterms. there is still this push to redistrict in a lot of the Red Sea states and the push back. So, there's still a lot of the legal, cases yet to be determined and, some back and forth. And, now reporting by, Scripps News advocates say that they have enough signatures now to block Missouri's gerrymandering, at least for now. So the group behind a referendum to block the new pro GOP maps say they've garnered more than 300,000 signatures. So the Advocates say the mere submission of those signatures is enough to halt the implementation of the new maps until voters weigh in on the issue, unless the Secretary of State determines that the petition process was improper or the signatures invalid. So let's welcome in Gerard Felitti. He's senior counsel for the Lawfare Project. So, how are the. How does. I mean, I'm sure Missouri's law is, a little different perhaps, than a few of the other states. But, how is the petition process affecting what, really is more of the legislature's province to redraw these districting maps?

Gerard Filitti: That's a very interesting question. And the answer is, we're not really sure because this will have to play out in the courts. Traditionally in Missouri, there has been deference to, petitions when they're filed with enough signatures to actually stop a law from going into effect or suspending a law that is in effect until voters vote on it in the next election cycle. But here we have the Secretary of State saying that the map, the new map is going to go into effect regardless of the referendum. So we are actually going to see how the courts rule on that, whether the legislature has been acting properly in giving deference to these signatures, or whether there needs to be a more formal electioneering process in order to get referendums accepted.

Jenna Ellis: Interesting. So there, So, yeah, at least in some of, my research, the state constitution of Missouri allow citizens to veto legislation via the petition if enough signatures are certified. But, I mean, to your knowledge, has this really been challenged, or would this be, looked at a little differently in terms of, you know, what's legislative, purview versus citizens input or, you know, what are some of the arguments that we anticipate?

Gerard Filitti: It's been challenged in the past and found to be a valid law, basically a valid provision of the state constitution. But the issue here isn't whether the referendum can take place, it's whether the legislation itself is stated, it's not implemented, whether the redistricting is not implemented until that referendum takes place. And that's something that hasn't been challenged before. it's been all. Every time, in every instance that there has been one of these referendums. The law has been put on hold until the referendum took place. But here we're actually going to see a challenge on whether the law does need to be put on hold. m. Missouri legislature has been doing. Or whether it can go ahead and implement it and then make a final decision once the referendum is held.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, okay. That. That clarifies it for me at least. And so, so if the, the courts rule that, the redistricting is put on hold until that referendum takes place, which is what Missouri Secretary of State is challenging, what would that mean then for the midterms, with a referendum be placed on the ballot in 2026 and the redistricting then not take effect pending the outcome of the vote, until 2028?

Gerard Filitti: Correct. It would be in 2026. The referendum would be on the vote, but the people would be voting in the same districts that they voted in up until that point. so if the referendum fails and the law takes effect and in 2028, we will have the new map. It'll just tick it down one more election cycle.

Jenna Ellis: Well, and so what's the practical effect then for, people running in these districts? I mean, for candidates, certainly if, you know, effectively there are redrawn districts that would eliminate a seat or would add a seat, and, you know, people are starting to campaign, put money into this, and so forth. And then there's a, there's a stop on the redistricting map. I mean, that. That seems like that would be difficult either way because then, pending the outcome of the judicial determination on whether or not there's a halt, people really don't know what candidates are running from where.

Gerard Filitti: That's right. And I think that's why we will see quick action by the courts. Because if you're a candidate running, whether in an old district or a new one, you will be going into court very quickly seeking injunctive relief, seeking the courts to either block or approve the referendum. So, you know, with certainty, whether you're investing time and money into a race, and whatever happens with the first court, it will be appealed and then appealed to the state supreme court. But I think that'll go fairly quickly because you do need that certainty going into your election cycle. Now, I think you'll also be guided by what the Supreme Court said in the Texas case last week, which is essentially giving deference to the state legislature when it's close to an election, even though it's. That's federal election law. I think you will see some difference to that in Missouri as well.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that would make sense. I mean, unlike some of the other, more substantive provisions, that the Missouri voters could try to challenge and, you know, veto that legislation, is the provision, to your knowledge, in the state constitution kind of all encompassing, that any, act that is within the province of the legislature can be challenged by Citizens that, you know, can include even more of the procedural functioning, like, redistricting lines.

Gerard Filitti: It is, but there is a difference between redistricting that's done in accordance with state law and redistricting that affects federal elections. Because. And we've seen this in the last few years as well, with challenges to, redistricting. It's. Courts look at it differently if it's just the state issue or if it's a federal issue. And it's going to be more difficult for state voters to say, to overrule a state constitution provision or vote on a state constitution provision that affects federal election law. So I think that the other challenge here is figuring out whether it's just a state issue or a federal one. I think the ultimate answer is because you're looking at congressional redistricting, it's federal, and that is that law needs to be applied across the country, uniformly not affected by what a local variance might be in terms of petitions or rulemaking or objections to the constitution in the state.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, that is really fascinating. obviously, because, you know, this goes to, this would. This would also go to the electoral college issue. And you know, Article 2 of the U.S. constitution is very clear that it's the legislature that determines, the process by which electors are chosen. and so, you know, these are, our federal, U.S. constitutional questions that, are given specifically to the state legislature. And so, you know, where, where should that deference be given if it's the state legislature, which is then governed by the state constitution? should the legislature, as the entity that the US Constitution provides that authority, have sole discretion? Or is that. Is that authority effectively, also then parlayed into the voters through the state constitution? I mean, how. How do you think that that issue, should ultimately be determined?

Gerard Filitti: Well, it's also the additional question of whether state legislatures can do anything they want when it comes to federal election law. And I think there we've seen the answer to be no, that you do need some uniformity and consistency. So what I think will. Will happen here is. And again, it's difficult to predict what courts will do at least at, for. For. Until you get to the final stages of appeals. I think you'll see a carve out saying that Missouri, you can have these referendums, but these referendums cannot be held on laws that are passed consistent with the Constitution on federal provisions. So I think that's the bigger difference here that you are looking at. Not really the power of the referendum or whether that's constitutional or not under state law, but what topics the referendums can basically address.

Jenna Ellis: Well, so how would that function then, practically, if we're talking about redistricting lines, for. So it would be split between whether it's a state office versus a federal office, and they'll have to have two, you know, completely separate maps for that.

Gerard Filitti: I think that is what is ultimately going to happen. And you already do have that in a lot of states and cities. You see that, for example, for city council, you have districts that are different or, you know, they cut across the congressional lines. You have more districts often than the congressional ones when it comes to cities or states. So I think that when you're looking at a redistricting under city or state law, it will be treated differently, versus one that affects congressional cities.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah.

Several states are facing challenges to their redistricting ahead of 2026

And all of this is so fascinating, and it seems like, you know, the clock is, ah, really rapidly running out of time for these challenges. But a lot of this, it seems like, especially ahead of 2026, Democrats and, and those kind of aligned groups are simply trying to halt or thwart, the GOP maps, at least ahead of 2026. Kind of live to fight another day and then, you know, get a lot of this sorted out and they hope, obviously, to their advantage before 2028. but what other states, if any, are in kind of a similar situation as Missouri? you know, the Supreme Court is letting Texas go ahead with their maps. are there any other states that we should anticipate having these types of challenges legally that Missouri is facing?

Gerard Filitti: Oh, I think we have challenges that will come up in a lot of states. We've got redistricting that's been approved in North Carolina, Ohio and Utah as well. The Utah map, by the way, favors the democr, not the Republicans. and we know that there are processes not taking place in Indiana, in Florida, Virginia and I think even Indiana, to hold you this thing, some of these states are being done to favor Democrats. So all of these are likely to be challenged at some point. But I think the next challenge we see, whichever one makes it up to the Supreme Court, I think we will see a reinforcement of the Texas principle, which is that when you're looking at making, changes very close to an election, there will be deference given to the legislature, and these challenges will be at least put on hold until after the next election. Wow.

Jenna Ellis: And so, so looking at this, then if at least the vast majority of these redistricting, are successful, at least in implementation for 2026, that could obviously change pending the outcome of some of this litigation. where would that situate the gop, at least in terms of the House? that, you know, because obviously, you know, the Senate's not changing in terms of two, per state. But, where would that change in terms of the House of Representatives and also the electoral college, which isn't you know, up for anything until 2028. But at least theoretically that would be situated. if this goes through, on paper.

Gerard Filitti: The electoral college would stay the same and well, more or less the same in terms of states. You'd have a difference only after you have a reapportionment by census, which is not what these mid election cycle redistricting is about. These are merely the parameters of the district, the size of the district, where the district encompasses. But on paper this favors Republicans. In practice, as we saw the other night in Miami, we don't know whether Republicans will actually pull off wins even in these new districts.

Jenna Ellis: Right, right. And so we're really with redistricting then. you know, given all of that, really the entire focus then is just on the House.

Gerard Filitti: Correct? It really is just on the House and on the house in 2026. because again this can be. Now that we have these mid cycle redistricting that's being pushed aggressively, we are likely to see this become a much more frequent phenomenon. So you may actually end up having redistricting every four years or be two years even, in very aggressive states.

Gerard Filitti: Wow.

Jenna Ellis: Which just creates the, the lack of predictability. But you know, that's politics, I suppose. I mean, and everybody is always trying to vie for procedural advantage. And you know, that happens even in legal cases as well, obviously. because you know that those are the procedural before you even get to the merits. But overall, you know, what's, what is your view, if you're adjudicating these cases on the authority for redistricting and you know, the overall question of citizens vetoes and citizens initiatives and all of that because, you know, I guess there's two kind of schools of thought here on the province of the legislature and the trustee sort of form of government versus true representatives. And if those representatives aren't doing the will of the people and they decide otherwise, they can basically step into the role of the legislature.

Gerard Filitti: Well, the biggest veto that citizens have is the election itself and who they vote for, who they put into office. And it always comes back to that. It's, you need to put people into office that you trust to Represent you even if you don't agree with everything that they say or do. And that's really what the change is. Now we live in a society that is instant gratification for everything. You go online, click on something and get an answer. You want your elected officials to act the same way, but they don't. So what we're going, what's really going on is we're seeing a shift from we have elections every two years or every four years and people get a chance to govern before being voted on. Now we have constant changes in politics so there's no more government. Everything is. People want instant gratification, which is why you see these recall petitions or you see these resolutions, or you see these referendums coming into play. Ultimately it's great to give people the thought that they have more power, but the real power is in who they vote for. Otherwise you're just having a system where you're constantly electing and not actually governing.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. Which, which then just kind of descends into the back and forth and nobody is really governing and actually getting things done. And so, you know, with so much focus often on national politics, you know, the national elections and things, I think that redistricting is an issue to highlight that we need to be paying attention what's going on in our individual states. Because not only do state politics ultimately affect you, the individual, quite a bit. And we've seen that in the differences obviously between California versus Florida and you know, Texas versus NewSong York. obviously those states are run very, very differently and the day to day is very different for the individual. But you know, things like this, like if this is on the ballot in 2026 in Missouri, voters need to understand that and need to be prepared. And hopefully there's a big turnout in the midterms. I mean historically Gerard, it's been frustrating for a lot of conservatives that the turnout is significantly less in an off cycle presidential election when a lot of this stuff, it truly matters. It's not just the president that matters. Everything else on the ballot matters as well. So quick response.

Gerard Filitti: President Trump did the idea of having a convention next year which in a mid year which is unprecedented and that would be actually meaningful. I think it's important these days to highlight attention on these midterm elections, but especially on state issues because who you vote for at the state level ultimately has a big, big play on who gets elected into federal office. So people need to be mindful of this and they need that reminder.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, so well said. And I think that is, I agree with you, that's a great idea to have a convention, kind of have sort of a national, conference and attention to these, types of things and highlight things that maybe the average person isn't paying attention to. So Gerard Felitti, really appreciate it. You can follow him on X. We're already out of time. So as always, you can reach me and my team. Jenna fr.net. PreBorn's whole mission is to rescue babies from abortion and lead their families to Christ. Last year PreBorn's network of clinics saw 8,900 mothers come to Christ. Please join us in this life saving mission. To donate, go to preborn.com afr.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg9e1nl40wo

https://www.npr.org/2025/12/04/nx-s1-5619692/supreme-court-texas-redistricting-map

https://www.scrippsnews.com/politics/elections/advocates-say-they-have-enough-signatures-to-block-missouri-gerrymandering-at-least-for-now