EXCLUSIVE: My Full Interview with a Cato Institute Scholar on the MEGA Act

Last week, I had the opportunity to interview Stephen Richer, a scholar at the Cato Institute. The interview centers on the GOP’s latest push for election-integrity legislation, particularly the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act, and the broader debate over whether Congress should set national standards for federal elections.

The MEGA Act would require voters to show a photo ID and provide proof of citizenship to register, and it would also mandate regular, rigorous maintenance of voter rolls. The bill sets a firm standard for mail-in voting by requiring ballots to be received by the close of polls on Election Day and calls for the use of auditable paper ballots to restore confidence in election results. It also bans ballot harvesting, ranked-choice voting, and universal vote-by-mail systems as part of a broader effort to standardize and strengthen election safeguards nationwide.

Richer and I disagree on some fundamental points, particularly regarding federalism and the scope of congressional authority in regulating our elections. But the discussion was substantive, candid, and revealing. There were moments of agreement, moments of tension, and moments where the arguments on both sides were sharpened in real time. That’s exactly the kind of debate we need more of.

I wrote an article for PJ Media based on excerpts from the interview, which you can read here. For my paid subscribers, I am offering you the opportunity to read the raw interview in full, without edits or selective excerpts, because transparency matters—especially on an issue as contentious and consequential as elections.

You’ll see where Richer raises concerns about state control and where I push back on the idea that baseline national standards to prevent fraud somehow amount to a federal takeover.

Read it, judge the arguments on their merits, and decide for yourself where you come down.