July 1, 2017

"President Trump’s voting commission stumbled into public view this week, issuing a sweeping request for nationwide voter data that drew sharp condemnation..."

"... from election experts and resistance from more than two dozen states that said they cannot or will not hand over all of the data," WaPo reports.
The immediate backlash marked the first significant attention to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity since Trump started it last month and followed through on a vow to pursue his own unsubstantiated claims that voter fraud is rampant and cost him the popular vote in the presidential election. The White House has said the commission will embark upon a “thorough review of registration and voting issues in federal elections,” but experts and voting rights advocates have pilloried Trump for his claims of widespread fraud, which studies and state officials alike have not found. They say that they fear the commission will be used to restrict voting.
So, there's the fear that the Commission will find things that may be either true or false but that, either way, people don't want to know — especially because it will leverage arguments that things must be done that they don't want to have to do.

There's also a privacy argument, which I think I would find more compelling, but the WaPo article does not put in words what the privacy problem is. It merely cites an "elections expert" (Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School) and says he "pointed to the request about voters’ party affiliations, which he said violates the federal Privacy Act of 1974." So WaPo doesn't quote Levitt, doesn't give the text of the Privacy Act, and doesn't give any substance to what the privacy interests are and how they are impaired.

It's as though they want us to think the privacy argument is bad or, worse, they're writing for a liberal audience and they don't care about the argument that appeals to a more conservative mind. If they did, they might talk about federalism and the way the Constitution gives the states the role of running elections for members of Congress (with a role given to Congress — not the executive branch — to regulate how the states handle their elections). And the states have the role of determining how to select the electors who choose the President.

It seems as though WaPo can't report this story without pushing the usual agenda, characterizing Republicans as bent on disenfranchising people.

ADDED: Trump tweeted this morning:
Numerous states are refusing to give information to the very distinguished VOTER FRAUD PANEL. What are they trying to hide?

129 comments:

Crimso said...

It seems the WaPo can't report.

Lucien said...

It seems as if the argument against the commission is: the President has made claims without any evidence to support them, so there is no basis for seeking out any evidence to support (or refute) those claims.

Clyde said...

A lot of that so-called private information is already publicly available. Party registration is part of the public record in Florida, and if you do a Google search of someone, it often pops right up.

I wouldn't have a problem with a limited database of information like name, DOB and last four of SSN for all voters. Those three things provide enough to identify whether a voter is committing fraud by voting in more than one place. Anything beyond that, such as full SSN, is probably government overreach.

Chuck said...

I have seen an even worse trend in the reporting on this story. The pundits and reporters are all saying that the commission is somehow intended to bolster Donald Trump's untrue claims of illegal voting which cost him the mythical popular vote.

I don't accept that criticism; Kris Kobach has a very very long history in election law and has never engaged in Trumplike falsehoods.

Yes, this may be another good conservative initiative that is dragged by Trump's personal distractions. And yes the press may have a built in antipathy because this is a presidential commission when the president is Trump. Trump did say a number of dumb things about election law, blending snippets of what he saw on tv with age-old myths that Trump probably grew up with.

I urged Althouse to blog this subject in another blog post and said very pointedly that I support this commission, and I ardently support President Trump's nomination of Kris Kobach as a co-chairman of the commission. I hope this gives Kobach and Vice President Pence a platform on which to shine brightly.

Ralph L said...

How do election boards remove from the rolls people who have left the state?
Why are some states' voter ID laws constitutional and some aren't?

Lots of questions that need answering, but everyone in power forgot the 2000 mess after 9/11.

Rene Saunce said...

The democrats want people here illegally, voting illegally.

Laslo Spatula said...

'Illegal Voter' will change into 'Undocumented Voter' soon...

I am Laslo.

Rae said...

Since the Russians hacked the elections we need universal voter id tied to citizenship to prevent massive voter fraud. In order to get that, I'd be open to giving felons a path to restoring their voting rights.

tcrosse said...

I foresee a voting rights March of the Dead.

James K said...

It seems as if the argument against the commission is: the President has made claims without any evidence to support them, so there is no basis for seeking out any evidence to support (or refute) those claims.

Let's try this: It seems as if the argument against the special counsel is: the Democrats have made claims without any evidence to support them, so there is no basis for seeking out any evidence to support (or refute) those claims.

Make sense, WaPo?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

So, there's the fear that the Commission will find things that may be either true or false but that, either way, people don't want to know — especially because it will leverage arguments that things must be done that they don't want to have to do.

Exactly. And if you never investigate voter fraud, you can always fall back on the argument that no investigation has ever found any voter fraud. Not that it's actually true -- every investigation has found some fraud, it's completely routine in fact -- just not the massive quantities Trump alleges.

I think the evidence that does exist suggests substantial fraud, enough to swing local races. Snowbirds and college students routinely vote in two states. Deceased people and those who have moved out of state remain on the rolls. So do felons. Motor-voter has made registration essentially automatic for anyone with a driver's license, which includes non-citizens (legal and illegal) in many states. &c. I'm not saying that I exactly believe the tales of, say, busloads of people trucked in from Massachusetts to vote a second time in New Hampshire, but the odd case of boxes of ballots "accidentally" turning up in the trunk of someone's car after the election is supposedly over do give one pause.

Re: True The Vote, there is somewhere an article detailing what Catherine Engelbrecht's business went through. In a short space of time, she was audited by the IRS (twice) and had visits as well from the BATF, OSHA, and I think one other agency (EPA?). All just totally random, of course. Could've happened to anyone. Right? This information didn't make the WaPo.

Tommy Duncan said...

So, there's the fear that the Commission will find things that may be either true or false but that, either way, people don't want to know — especially because it will leverage arguments that things must be done that they don't want to have to do.

We had a preview of the issue about with the Jill Stein recounts, which turned up inconvenient inconsistencies favoring the wrong team.

Fen said...

"Stumbled into public"

I appreciate the "journalist" using such loaded language at the beginning. So knew the rest was the usual propganda.

Recent report before the election found massive voter fraud in Virginia alone. Around 20,000 fraudulent votes. So I know this is drek.

But even without that, I would know that Democrats and the liberal media are invested in protecting their vote fraud operations, simply because in 6 months of whining about the fake Russia hack, NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRAT has called for a return to paper ballots.

Tank said...

Commission may find hate hate facts.

Can't go there.

n.n said...

Leftist engagement in hiding the data (a la hiding the decline), excessive immigration (e.g. gerrymandered districts, mass emigration, coverup of collateral damage from elective wars), normalization of dysfunctional orientations (e.g. Planned Parenthood, transgender spectrum disorder), and reestablishment of institutional [class] diversity (e.g. minority striation or rainbow spectrum) are all probable cause to investigate Democratic works.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Ah. Re: True The Vote, it wasn't the EPA; it was the FBI. Potentially more sinister. Though now that the EPA also has its own SWAT teams, possibly not.

clint said...

- The facts support our position!
- We will fight tooth and nail to make sure those facts are never revealed to the public!

Pick one.

You can't have both.

Fen said...

The Russians robbed my warehouse! But uh... don't call the police. No need to involve them. It's all good. Uh-huh.

Mac McConnell said...

Michelle Dulak Thomson what exactly do you believe the Rev. Jim Jones' of the Jonestown mass suicide fame was doing in the San Francisco area for decades prior to moving to Guyana? He was a celebrated Democrat operative know for busing illegals to the polls where needed. He didn't get continually invited to the WH for his good works for the poor.

Bruce Hayden said...

It is going to be interesting. If there is rampant cheating going on, it is mostly happening in the deepest blue Dem bastions. Crooked Hillary's popular vote win margin may, indeed, be mostly constituted of illegal or fraudulent votes. Where her win was the biggest in absolute terms was CA which, apparently intentionally, set up a motor voter system that almost encourages (esp illegal) aliens to register to vote when they get drivers' licenses. And then, maybe again intentionally, discourages checking immigrant lists and status against voting registrations and voting lists.

The problem is that the same machines (typically, but not necessarily Dem) that benefit the most from illegal votes and voting are tasked with policing the same voting that keeps them in office. It is one thing when you have a big city, and the state can walk in and force oversight. But once the political machine takes control at the state level, there isn't a lot that anyone can do. As the state party running the political machine gets more unpopular, they just generate more illegal and fraudulent votes to keep themselves in power, which translates into control over the sanctity of the voting apparatus that keeps them in power. The Feds could, theoretically do what the state's do for cities with corrupt voting systems, which is to step in and clean things up - except that states have been given control over their own elections under our federal system. And, hence, probably much of the resistance to Trump's voting commission, with the cheaters not cooperating in order to not get caught cheating. My prediction right now is that much, if not most, of the resistance to the federal voting commission is going to come from the biggest cheaters. And, I am not sure that there is much that anyone can do about it, until and unless it can be clearly shown that federal laws have been violated.

ken in tx said...

One problem for conservatives and/or libertarians is that they are sometimes accused of harboring ideas that they really do have but hate to admit. I, for example, think that universal suffrage is a bad idea. Not everybody should be allowed to vote. If you join a co-op, credit union, or labor union, you have own at least one share or pay your dues to vote. Not everyone who shows up at the company picnic gets to elect the CEO. BTW, there is plenty of evidence of voter fraud. It's been going on all my life.

n.n said...

The rise of anti-native factions that have conducted elective wars, forced refugee crises, promoted excessive immigration, disenfranchised native populations, advocated for Planned Parenthood and other dysfunctional orientations, labor and environmental arbitrage (e.g. "green" industry), and engaged in insourcing/outsourcing thereby undermining native and legal employment are all probable cause to investigate Democratic works. It's why Democrats lost and most Republic candidates were rejected. And now, the Democrats are doubling down on their anti-native fervor.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Fen,

But even without that, I would know that Democrats and the liberal media are invested in protecting their vote fraud operations, simply because in 6 months of whining about the fake Russia hack, NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRAT has called for a return to paper ballots.

Yes. This. And not just because Glenn Reynolds said it a few days ago. Paper ballots (not the "hanging chad" type, but flat ones filled in with pen, quasi-SAT), filled out at a polling place (i.e., not at home, where anyone might do the actual voting, as is unfortunately the case in my state) are basically "unhackable." I mean, you can still flat-out steal them, as people have done, but you can't alter them.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Bruce Hayden,

What's amusing about CA is that every non-citizen registered to vote there through motor-voter definitionally has a driver's license, so the hysteria about "voter ID laws" is exactly that.

n.n said...

ken in tx:

Universal suffrage is not incompatible with American conservatism. There is nothing in the national charter (Declaration of Independence) or the organizing contract (The Constitution) that precludes it. There is also nothing to legalize or normalize/promote elective abortion, but with the increasing adoption of a twilight faith and establishment of a Pro-Choice religious/moral/legal philosophy ("Church"), progressive liberalism seems to be a fait accompli. It is not, however, conservative. Perhaps in other context, but not in America.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Mac McConnell,

Jonestown was well before I came out to CA. I think I was 11 or so. What Jim Jones may have gotten up to in the 60s and 70s I don't know, but it's worth mentioning that there were Republican Presidents during some of those years, and I'm not sure a Democratic operative of the sort you allege would have been welcome in a Nixon or Ford WH, though I put nothing at all past LBJ.

Rob said...

Apparently we can't draw any negative inference from the refusal of states to provide voter information, but we can draw a negative inference from Trump's refusal to provide tax returns. If it wasn't for double standards, we wouldn't have any standards at all.

sunsong said...

Trump and the GOP want to suppress the vote. It's racism, essentially. I hope most all the states refuse...

sunsong said...

"A growing list of states is refusing to comply with the White House’s unprecedented demands to hand over their voting roll data.

"On Thursday, Trump’s “Commission on Election Integrity” sent out a letter to all 50 states ordering officials to turn over a whole lot of information on voters. The list of requested information includes: “full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of Social Security number if available, [and] voter history from 2006 onward.”

"A pretty frightening list of demands, especially given the vice chairman of the commission’s documented history of voter suppression: As Secretary of State in Kansas, Kris Kobach led an assault on voting rights so terrible, it prompted the ACLU to describe him as “the King of Voter Suppression.” As an advisor to Trump, Kobach has also signaled he supports a Muslim registry..."



fusion

Hagar said...

He didn't get continually invited to the WH for his good works for the poor.

Whatever happened to Al Sharpton?

Diogenes of Sinope said...

My understanding is that all the information requested is all supposed to be available to the public? Am I wrong?

John said...

Unknown Inga feel free to attack the messenger:



By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Monday, June 19, 2017

A research group in New Jersey has taken a fresh look at postelection polling data and concluded that the number of noncitizens voting illegally in U.S. elections is likely far greater than previous estimates.

As many as 5.7 million noncitizens may have voted in the 2008 election, which put Barack Obama in the White House.

The research organization Just Facts, a widely cited, independent think tank led by self-described conservatives and libertarians, revealed its number-crunching in a report on national immigration.

Just Facts President James D. Agresti and his team looked at data from an extensive Harvard/YouGov study that every two years questions a sample size of tens of thousands of voters. Some acknowledge they are noncitizens and are thus ineligible to vote.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/noncitizen-illegal-vote-number-higher-than-estimat/

John Henry

Diogenes of Sinope said...

At WaPo it's all leftist politics, the stories are just a vessel.

mockturtle said...

" They say that they fear the commission will be used to restrict voting."

Yes! Restrict voting to American citizens! What a shocking idea!

roesch/voltaire said...

The data base will be a treasure trove for Russian hackers more than anything that will prove voter fraud.

Big Mike said...

But we Republicans really do want to disenfranchise several classes of Democrat voters: the deceased, the non-citizens, the mentally disabled ...

Here in Virginia we caught them registering dead voters by accident -- one of the names was a relative of the judge and the address was the address of the cemetery where he was buried.

Sebastian said...

"It seems as though WaPo can't report this story without pushing the usual agenda, characterizing Republicans as bent on disenfranchising people." It seems that "it seems" is an understatement.

I get how the disenfranchisement narrative serves Dem purposes. I get how they want to keep their scam going. And of course, prog logic, like prog ethics, is situational. But it is still not clear how checking whether actual records of actual voters show fraud causes "disenfranchisement."

What this really confirms is the Buwaya Banana Republic scenario. US id and verification procedures are laughable by the comparative standards of civilized countries.

Rene Saunce said...

Sunsong - don't be an idiot.

Democrats want illegals voting. Nothing to do with suppression of legal voting.

Democrats want to suppress the truth.

AJ Lynch said...

Simple common sense tells you that that if a country has 30-40 million residents who are either illegal immigrants or not yet citizens that there would be a good number [3%...5%..10%? etc] of illegitimate voters. Especially when many states do not require proof of citizenship to register to vote.

Michael K said...

Yes, this may be another good conservative initiative that is dragged by Trump's personal distractions.

Chuck, has it occurred to you that Republican administrations could have done this before ?

All these Trump haters keep reminding me of Captain Renault's reply to Colonel Strasser about "bumbling Americans."

Trump sure seems to stumble into a lot of good actions.

Michael K said...

"Sunsong - don't be an idiot."

It's OK. It's what they do. Sort of like the scorpion and the frog. They can't help themselves.

Ray said...

It would save a lot of time/resources to just get a copy from them or the Chinese.

Sounds sarcastic, till you realize the Chinese and Russians probably have the data...

>Blogger roesch/voltaire said...
>The data base will be a treasure trove for Russian hackers more than anything that will prove voter fraud.

Original Mike said...

Blogger sunsong said..."Trump and the GOP want to suppress the vote. It's racism, essentially."

I'm a racist because I want only real citizens to vote, and only vote once? You really believe this?

Ray said...

Trump wins no matter what.

Some wins:

1. He is shattering the Overton window that has been built on voter fraud in the US.
2. He shows how partisan his opponents are.
3. The refusals create opportunities for lawsuits for the public information.
4. It will probably show how the us system that relays on trust in many states for voter fraud prevention is being played.
5. Discredits the experts
6. Plays to his voters
7. Forces his opponents to confront an area they would rather not.
8. May show how backward the us is compared to most other countries for voter integrity.
9. Not to mention the Russian hacking issue, I assume that's in the commission purview.

Roger Sweeny said...

Would the Washington Post run a news story saying, "a special counsel has been appointed to investigate unsubstantiated allegations of hanky panky between Russia and the Trump campaign"?

Chuck said...

Michael K said...

Chuck, has it occurred to you that Republican administrations could have done this before ?

Michael, the George W. Bush Administration started out in January of 2001 by being challenged a lot more seriously about its electoral validity, than has been the Trump Administration. And in terms of electoral law, Congress was consumed by the passage of the Help America Vote Act. Which was a law with some good, some bad, and some neutral provisions but which on the whole has been workable and which did not prevent the election of Trump.

But the last eight years, there hasn't been any Republican administration. We've had lots of good people working hard to improve regulatory and case law. Hans von Spakovsky (now on the commission); Kris Kobach (now vice chair of the commission); Prof. Bradley Smith (not on the commission, but he would have been a good choice to lead it). We've been in the courts, with Citizens United v. FEC (which Trump once criticized) and SpeechNow v. FEC (which is the case that really created the legal space that Trump was mistaking for Citizens United).

So this battle has been fought longer than Donald Trump has thought about politics. Fortunately, someone (Pence, probably) presented this idea to Trump and Trump liked it. I expect that Trump liked it because it gave Trump a chance to talk about "voter fraud," as he had done before. And of course, as always, it has been a big mistake on Trump's part. I expect that the commission will not come up with major new evidence of voter "fraud"; it might find evidence of marginally-significant "non-citizen voting." I think that is what Kobach and von Spakovsky suspect. And it might come up with other evidence of bad registration procedures that need to be fixed.

But just look back at the WaPo article that this blog post was based on. Every third or fourth paragraph contains a reference to Donald Trump saying something intemperate about voting, and it will all be used against the Commission and the Commissioners. It is a hard enough job to re-tool federal voting law when the conservatives' case is factual, clear and cogent. It is an awful job, when the first task is to dig out from under Trump quotes.

Original Mike said...

With respect to party affiliation, I don't think that's information the government should be collecting.

Some Seppo said...

Co-opting the Left's jargon: We need this commission for ballot justice. You aren't against justice, are you?

Craig said...

"So, there's the fear that the Commission will find things that may be either true or false but that, either way, people don't want to know — especially because it will leverage arguments that things must be done that they don't want to have to do."

That's some kind of tendentious misread of the WAPO text. Another instance of Trump Derangement Syndrome Derangement Syndrome, best I can tell. If only there was a more obvious and more charitable way to read this (there is), and if only there were several discussions of that more obvious and more charitable read in the article (there are, e.g., several skeptics of the panel quoted shortly after this passage).

David said...

Once you federalize the voting rules, you federalize the oversight process. And you make it a major issue of federal politics.

Remember. One of the reasons that our federal politics are so vicious is that expansion of federal power has put so many matters at stake

Gahrie said...

Yes, this may be another good conservative initiative that is dragged by Trump's personal distractions

yeah, because if anyone else was in office, the Democrats and the MSM would be willing to cooperate with an investigation into voter fraud...right?

Or is Chuck just making yet another gratuitous attack on President Trump?

David said...

sunsong said...
Trump and the GOP want to suppress the vote. It's racism, essentially. I hope most all the states refuse...


Of course. It will be just fine to gather this data once the Democrats are back in power.

h said...

Claim: Actions by the Russians undermined the integrity of the US election. Evidence: No definitive proof. Conclusion: this must be investigated throroughly.

Claim: Actions by criminals to fraudulently vote undermined the integrity of the US election: Evidence: some evidence of fraud, but not on the scale claimed by Trump. Conclusion: Don't waste time and money investigating an unsubstantiated claim.

Gahrie said...

With respect to party affiliation, I don't think that's information the government should be collecting.

Every state keeps a record of a voter's address, party affiliation and voting record that can be bought by anyone who wishes to.

Wilbur said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CWJ said...

Shorter Chuck.

Something is happening.

Trump exists.

Trump must be referenced negatively.

Wilbur said...

When I lived in Illinois 30-odd years ago, it was taken as a fact by the body politic that the Democratic Party would lie, cheat and steal to gin up votes in elections, even in downstate counties. My Democratic friends would only talk about this privately, but would justify it as the noble ends justifying the ignoble means.

It's coded in their DNA. When they rail against these fact-finding efforts, who do they think they're fooling? And they wonder what's the matter with Kansas.

Original Mike said...

"Every state keeps a record of a voter's address, party affiliation and voting record that can be bought by anyone who wishes to."

I understand that, Gahrie. I don't think the government should collect party affiliation data in the first place.

Gahrie said...

I don't think the government should collect party affiliation data in the first place.

They have to, because in most places the primaries are closed, and so only Republicans can vote in Republican primaries, and only Democrats can vote in Democratic primaries.

Gahrie said...

I understand that, Gahrie. I don't think the government should collect party affiliation data in the first place

I don't think the government should keep track of my income and financial data, but it does.

Original Mike said...

I'm opposed to tax-payer funded primaries. If the primary is tax-payer funded, it should be open.

Original Mike said...

It's none of the government's damn business who I vote for.

Original Mike said...

Just like it's none of their damn business what race I am.

MayBee said...

Original Mike said...
I'm opposed to tax-payer funded primaries. If the primary is tax-payer funded, it should be open.


I completely agree!

Michael K said...

It is a hard enough job to re-tool federal voting law when the conservatives' case is factual, clear and cogent. It is an awful job, when the first task is to dig out from under Trump quotes.

Do you know what is really hard, chuck?

Winning elections for president.

For all your distaste for Trump, he won and now we can do something about it.

Gahrie said...

I'm opposed to tax-payer funded primaries. If the primary is tax-payer funded, it should be open.

If you are Democratic and live in a red area, or Republican and live in a blue area, you wouldn't. Thanks to California's new open primaries, I was given the choice of voting for a Democratic tool (Loretta Sanchez) or a Democratic tool (Kamala Harris) for Senator last year.

Original Mike said...

It's very unfortunate, but I am not optimistic they're going to get the data. They should explore what sanctions or penalties can be imposed.

Original Mike said...

"If you are Democratic and live in a red area, or Republican and live in a blue area, you wouldn't. "

No, I still would. It's the principle of the thing. There are no "parties" in the Constitution.

Kevin said...

Given the darkness which shows up in story after story, and the slogan of the paper, it can only be surmised the WAPO's mission is to kill democracy.

Achilles said...

sunsong said...
"Trump and the GOP want to suppress the vote. It's racism, essentially. I hope most all the states refuse..."

I am going to make one kind request that you stop calling a wide majority of Americans who don't want illegal voters and want honest elections racist.

It is an absolutely disgusting tactic and only used by awful people. I am tired of being called racist by people who have no legitimate arguments and fall back on that bullshit. This is the type of incivility that we are not going to let slide anymore.

If althouse wants a civil discussion she will deal with this kind of crap. Otherwise I am going to push back. It is bullshit.

Sam L. said...

Hey, WaPo! Wasn't it YOU who has "Truth dies in darkness" on your front page?

Hyphenated American said...

I hoped president Trump would send a request to all 50 states to provide a complete list if everyone who voted in 2016, with the voter date of birth, social security number, address, and full name. If the state cannot provide such information for some votes, these votes are declared illegal....

Looks like president Trump is doing exactly that.... and it looks like many liberals and even republicans in charge of elections are confirming that there were millions of fraudulent votes by refusing to provide the information.

Voter fraud is an attack on voting rights. It's far worse than anything Putin could have done.

Hyphenated American said...

"It's very unfortunate, but I am not optimistic they're going to get the data. They should explore what sanctions or penalties can be imposed."

They need to subpoena the states. Use Doj, or maybe even appoint a special prosecutor.

Achilles said...

Do you know what is really hard, chuck?

Winning elections for president.


Meh.

Republicans losing elections: "We can't do anything until we are elected.

Republicans win house: "we need the senate!"

Republicans win senate also: "We need the executive!"

Republicans win presidential election too: "Trump is mean to democrats!"

In the end the Chucks of the world will find any excuse to not do what their voters want.

Gahrie said...

There are no "parties" in the Constitution.

True. Permanent factions were not forseen by the Founders. But nothing in the Constitution forbids them either.

Seeing Red said...

Don't states sell that info?

Seeing Red said...

Take them all to court beat them like rented mules.

Original Mike said...

"But nothing in the Constitution forbids them either."

I don't want to prohibit them, just undo their hijacking of the election process.

Original Mike said...

"Don't states sell that info?"

I bet they'd refuse to sell. Their entire racket is at stake.

Subpeona, sue, buy. Do whatever works most quickly but this is an exercise that needs to be done pronto.

Gahrie said...

I don't want to prohibit them, just undo their hijacking of the election process

Well convince the states to change the laws then. We have open primaries in California, and I think they're a mistake.

Jupiter said...

From the article John Henry cited;

"He believes the Harvard/YouGov researchers based their “zero” claim on two flawed assumptions. First, they assumed that people who said they voted and identified a candidate did not vote unless their names showed up in a database.
“This is illogical, because such databases are unlikely to verify voters who use fraudulent identities, and millions of noncitizens use them,” Mr. Agresti said."

So, the lying Media (but I repeat myself) who have been assuring us there is no voter fraud have been relying (heh) upon a study based upon completely bogus assumptions. Produced, I might add, by one of the multitude of tax-supported liars who infest our universities.

Jupiter said...

Rae said...
"Since the Russians hacked the elections we need universal voter id tied to citizenship to prevent massive voter fraud. In order to get that, I'd be open to giving felons a path to restoring their voting rights."

Say, while we're on the subject of needs, I need a new television, cheap. In order to get that, I'd be open to felons breaking into your house and stealing one. They can even shoot you if you try to stop them. Fine by me. Price of living in a democracy, right?

Original Mike said...

"Well convince the states to change the laws then."

Uh-huh.

We have open primaries in California, and I think they're a mistake.

We have them in Wisconsin too and I support them. It's the only way I can vote in primaries

Big Mike said...

What are they trying to hide?

That's always been a very good question. Makes me think of the time our toddler (today a grown man) patiently explained that he really had cleaned up his room and there was NO NEED to go in.

Original Mike said...

"We have open primaries in California, ..."

I thought California had a system where the top candidates, independent of party, advanced.

Original Mike said...

top two

Pianoman said...

So if you donate money to a California proposition that the Right-Thinking People disagree with, you can be hounded out of your job. And that's no problem.

But if the Feds want you to prove that you're not engaging in voter fraud -- well, then suddenly PRIVACY!

Yancey Ward said...

I don't think the holdout states can win this battle since most of the data is already available and collectible, just not from them. The missing piece is probably the SS data, but there will be enough states that do send a complete set that the commission will be able to study it and make a report.

Livermoron said...

In researching my genealogy I cam across an ancestor who was a circuit court judge for decades starting in the mid-1950s. I found an interview with him about politics, and in an admission against his interests (he's a Democrat) he detailed how the Democrats would round up sharecroppers, homeless, and other largess-dependent constituencies and drive them from poll to poll to vote. He also detailed that the Dems would have poll watchers who would only allow one voter into the polling place at a time...and that each voter must announce who they were voting for as they cross the threshold. Those voting Dem would be allowed to vote immediately. Those voting for the Republicans had to first go to the back of the room to be lectured at by a panel of men who would warn them of the consequences of their vote.

This has been a real problem for a long time, despite what some posters here would have you believe.

YoungHegelian said...

Of course, the Dems are against this. It's nothing but a losing proposition for them.

The Dems have always held to the sweeping statement that "There is no voter fraud" as opposed to the far more likely but less rhetorically satisfying statement "There is some voter fraud, but it's not enough to make a difference anywhere".

So, when you make a sweeping categorical statement, all it takes is one teeny-tiny instance of voter fraud, & boom! --- yer wrong! Trump's twitter feed goes into overtime pounding you into the ground.

The Dems know that there is at least minor voter fraud. In California, they, like the rest of us, probably think that there's major fraud. A federal investigation into voter fraud stands too good of a chance of handing Trump a victory on a silver platter.

Original Mike said...

"...but there will be enough states that do send a complete set that the commission will be able to study it and make a report."

The states that comply will be the ones in which the government in not dependent upon fraud. This exercise could backfire.

walter said...

"Since the Russians hacked the elections we need universal voter id tied to citizenship to prevent massive voter fraud. In order to get that, I'd be open to giving felons a path to restoring their voting rights."

Impressively efficient string of non-sequiturs.

walter said...

But this should give ya the warm fuzzies:
Virginia Gov. Pardons 60,000 Felons, Enough To Swing Election

Bruce Hayden said...

"sunsong said...
"Trump and the GOP want to suppress the vote. It's racism, essentially. I hope most all the states refuse..."

I am going to make one kind request that you stop calling a wide majority of Americans who don't want illegal voters and want honest elections racist."

I agree 100% with Achilles here. Calling those who want to clean up voting and honest elections racists is despicable. The racists are the ones who pretend that poor blacks and Hispanics are too stupid or too disabled to get state issued picture ids. Esp when the states requiring such for voting inevitably provide them free, and facilitate their acquisition. Somehow the same people who need such photo ids to cash their welfare or Social Security checks, get food stamps, etc, shouldn't be required to have them for voting? As I said - the racists are the ones who claim that these people can't get ids to vote are the racists, for importing their own negative stereotypes of these demographics into their arguments.

Yancey Ward said...

Orginal Mike,

As YoungHegelian points out, there is 100% certainty that there is some level of voter fraud, and I point out that every red state, every single one, has deep blue regions. Even if only half the states comply (and, as I wrote above, I don't think non-compliance even works given the states don't even really control the information since it is open to the public already), you will have enough state-wide data, and you will be able to compare the differences across any individual state to make a judgment about any other state for which you don't have the data. We will learn a lot about voter fraud.

mockturtle said...

Big Mike recalls: That's always been a very good question. Makes me think of the time our toddler (today a grown man) patiently explained that he really had cleaned up his room and there was NO NEED to go in.

And top it off with, "Don't you trust me?" That's when you need to roll out the Reaganesque, "Trust but verify!".

walter said...

Funny how cries of "vote suppression!" are rarely heard in the many Western countries that have more stringent voting regulation.

walter said...

So Chuck, you think Pence was misguided bringing this up?

Ray said...

Trump wants to suppress the illegal vote.

Most of the GOP ahead honchos agrees this is a real issue, but are afraid of being tarred as Racists. So they avoid bringing up the issue.

>Trump and the GOP want to suppress the vote. It's racism, essentially. I hope most all the states refuse...

I find it embarrassing that the us lags even Mexico in preventing voter fraud measures.

Mike said...

Yes, this may be another good conservative initiative that is dragged by Trump's personal distractions.

Chuck, has it occurred to you that Republican administrations could have done this before ?



Exactly. They didn't even try. Didn't organize 20 or so governors to form a coalition of concerned Republicans. Nothing. LLRs remind me of the salesguy who always has a ready list of excuses why he didn't get the sale, more specifically the one who wants to blame the CEO. We should have really jumped on this problem (illegal voting) after 2000, but we didn't. Bush avoided fights that would engender the "you're a racist" type arguments. Glad to see Chuck "trusts Kobach and Pence" but he still can't get past Trump said X and his own chicken little reaction to the POTUS's free wheeling speaking style.

In the long run Trump is proving Barone's axiom that "All procedural arguments are insincere" by showing how hypocritical the pundit class is about calling out Trump while ignoring decades of hate speech from the left. How come I never heard "the obamacare process will first have to overcome Pelosi's stupid 'you'll have to vote on it to see what's in it' comment?" Because only one side is ever "held to account" or held back by mere words. Which is more germane to the process, Trump's "millions of illegals voted" or Pelosi's weird syntax?

mockturtle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mockturtle said...

Achilles writes: Republicans losing elections: "We can't do anything until we are elected.

Republicans win house: "we need the senate!"

Republicans win senate also: "We need the executive!"

Republicans win presidential election too: "Trump is mean to democrats!"

In the end the Chucks of the world will find any excuse to not do what their voters want.


The GOP doesn't want to 'do anything' besides get re-elected. Same with the Dems.

mockturtle said...

Well, the GOP does want tax reform to repay their big donors.

mockturtle said...

There really should be four political parties:
1. Fiscally conservative + socially conservative.
2. Fiscally conservative + socially liberal.
3. Fiscally liberal + socially conservative.
4. Fiscally liberal + socially liberal.

Ray said...

U.K. Is the only other industrial country that does not require voter is to vote.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/11/06/foreign-election-officials-amazed-by-trust-based-u-s-voting-system-2/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421292/world-requires-voter-id-george-soros-and-hillary-clinton-are-determined-us-wont-john

Trump is Trump, and his history of uttering beyond what is considered acceptable in polite company have not slowed his political agenda down. He has said stuff that would have destroyed any other politician, and he's still standing and moving forward. Based on this, I don't see any real negative impact of his life past statements on the voter issue. Think of all the dirt that has been thrown against him, and he's still successfully destroying his opponents credibility.

Christy said...

How about making the penalty for voter fraud the loss of a kidney or a fraction of a liver? You damage our body politic, the state gets to use your body for spare parts.

walter said...

Mike said...How come I never heard "the obamacare process will first have to overcome Pelosi's stupid 'you'll have to vote on it to see what's in it' comment?"
--
Or "electricity costs will necessarily skyrocket".
That should have been political cudgel against Obama. Establishment Repubs met that with silence...because racism or something.

Mac McConnell said...

Seeing Red said...
Don't states sell that info?

Yes they sell them, anyone who has ever ran a campaign knows this. It's what the "ground game" is based on.

It was reported back after Trump won and made his illegal voting comments, California purged their DMV data files of national citizenship indicators. Motor-voter has done exactly what opponents said it would.

Original Mike said...

"It was reported back after Trump won and made his illegal voting comments, California purged their DMV data files of national citizenship indicators."

Do you have a link for that?

Rae said...

Say, while we're on the subject of needs, I need a new television, cheap. In order to get that, I'd be open to felons breaking into your house and stealing one. They can even shoot you if you try to stop them. Fine by me. Price of living in a democracy, right?

Let me guess - you were captain of the debate club, weren't you? Because I can tell by your extensive knowledge of rhetorical techniques.

Achilles said...

Christy said...
How about making the penalty for voter fraud the loss of a kidney or a fraction of a liver? You damage our body politic, the state gets to use your body for spare parts.

That is what China does.

We are decent people in the US. We want immediate deportation.

grimson said...

Awkward . . . "Kobach: Kansas won't give Social Security info to Kobach-led voter commission at this time"

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article159113369.html

Luke Lea said...

Would love to know more about what the legal and Constitutional issues are in this case and hope Ann blogs about them in greater detail, maybe linking to other legal experts.

Khesanh 0802 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
champ said...

"They say that they fear the commission will be used to restrict voting."

It will, it will restrict voting by illegal aliens...

Khesanh 0802 said...

@ Mock Turtle This from the WSL Best of the Web might make you happier.

"But like so much of the Beltway bureaucracy State has been overfunded and undermanaged for years. Now, despite what you may have read about untouchable bureaucrats unaccountable to the public they are supposed to serve, Mr. Tillerson has found ways to clean house"

"Tillerson has canceled the incoming class of foreign service officers. This as if the Navy told all of its incoming Naval Academy officers they weren’t needed. Senior officers have been unceremoniously pushed out. Many saw the writing on the wall and just retired, and many others are now awaiting buyout offers. He has dismissed State’s equivalent of an officer reserve—retired FSOs, who are often called upon to fill State’s many short-term staffing gaps, have been sent home despite no one to replace them. Office managers are now told three people must depart before they can make one hire."

From an WSJ opinion piece on the FDA:

"Earlier this week FDA published a list of drugs that don’t face competition from generic alternatives even though their intellectual property protections have expired. FDA said it will expedite the approval process for such applications “until there are three approved generics for a given drug product.” The agency says it will take more steps and has announced a July meeting for public feedback."

"The savings ripple across the health-care system, and last year generics saved $253 billion, according to a June report from the Association for Accessible Medicines. Case in point are alternatives for chronic troubles like the cholesterol-reducing statin, Lipitor, which cost $3.29 a unit before its patent expired. The generic version last year cost $0.11."

Khesanh 0802 said...

On the voting I agree with Trump. Given that the Federal Government is focusing on Federal elections they should be able to ask for and receive info, although I do agree that party affiliation may be going a little bit too far. As someone notes mostnof this info is in the public domain anyway.

Ralph L said...

NC started requiring a SS card to get a driver's license (before the Voter ID law was struck down). I had to get a new card. What did the feds want for that? A driver's license! Fortunately, mine was still current. Old SS card showed up months later.

mockturtle said...

Khesan at 1:48: Thank you! At least someone is trying to drain the swamp!

SDN said...

""It's very unfortunate, but I am not optimistic they're going to get the data. They should explore what sanctions or penalties can be imposed.""

Well, here's one: Congress alone determines who shall be seated; let the GOP House and the GOP Senate refuse to seat any state's members who refuse to send the data.

And everyone should remember this: We have Hilary's campaign staff on video describing how the Democrats committed vote fraud in prior elections, and how they would do it again.

Larvell said...

I like how it is now de riguer for the media, in a "news" piece, to reflexively point out as a matter of fact that claims of voter fraud are "unsubstantiated" -- something they have never once, to my knowledge, made a point of doing with respect to a Democrat assertion (e.g., that 20% of college girls are raped.

Original Mike said...

"Well, here's one: Congress alone determines who shall be seated; let the GOP House and the GOP Senate refuse to seat any state's members who refuse to send the data."

Oh, that's good, because it's 100% relevant. "Sorry, we don't know that your election was legitimate."

OldManRick said...

I was given the choice of voting for a Democratic tool (Loretta Sanchez) or a Democratic tool (Kamala Harris) for Senator last year.

Interesting facts about the California Vote in the presidential election.

Registered voters in California
Registered voters 18,055,783 48.8%
Democratic 7,932,373 43.9%
Republican 5,225,675 28.9%
D–R spread +2,706,698
D-R Ratio 1.52 to 1

Presidential Vote
Democratic Hillary Clinton 8,753,788 61.73%
Republican Donald Trump 4,483,810 31.62%
Independents total 943,997 6.65%
D–R spread +4,269,978
D-R Ratio 1.95 to 1

Democrats got 821,415 more votes than their registration. Republican got 741,865 less.
Because of the open primaries, there were precincts in California where republicans had no one to vote for so they and republican leaning independents stayed home. They didn't expect to carry California for Trump, didn't have a senate candidate to vote for, and probably in some local elections didn't even have the dog catcher to vote for. I'll bet that no other state saw such a drop off of ratios between registered voters and votes cast. It is one of the reasons why Hillary's I-won-the-popular-vote means nothing.

Fen said...

Sunsong: "preventing voter fraud is racist."

Oh go fuck yourself.

Bad Lieutenant said...

who refuse to send the data.

Something something Federal funds?

Kevin said...

"It's racism, essentially."

It either is or it isn't. You don't get to make something into something else by adding "essentially".

It's not racism. Your qualifier of "essentially" acknowledges as much.

richardsson said...

I need to clarify some misstatements of fact here. California does not have open primaries---primaries that allow you to vote for any candidate of any party regardless of your registration. Closed primaries are by definition that you must register in the party to vote in the primary. Both the Democrat and the Republican official parties sued all the way to the Supreme Court to overturn the "cafeteria" primary that had been voted in by initiative. So, now we have closed primaries again. BUT, Afterwards, former Lt. Gov Abel Maldonado, a Rino, succeeded in passing his "Top Two" initiative. Although Democrats and Republicans vote in their separate primaries. The top two vote getters regardless of party go on to the General Election. That's how we got the Sanchez-Harris fiasco in the Senate race last year. The best you can say for this "Top Two" is that it was and utterly stupid idea for a Republican to propose. That an alleged Republican came up with it....well...Ahnuld, and Abel killed the Republican Party in California.

tim maguire said...

Does anyone doubt that there would be less opposition to eliminating voter fraud if there weren't groups that benefit from voter fraud?

Look to who's complaining and you'll know who benefits.

Martin said...

I am often frustrated or even offended by Trump's tweets, but on this one he is EXACTLY right.