August 1, 2017

"U.S. judge denies Common Cause effort to block Trump voter commission."

WaPo reports:
The group alleged the request for voting history and political party affiliation by the Trump administration violates a Watergate-era law that prohibits the government from gathering information about how Americans exercise their First Amendment rights.

49 comments:

eric said...

Good to hear. But won't they just appeal until they find a judge who agrees with them? And then puts on a nation wide injunction?

rehajm said...

But won't they just appeal until they find a judge who agrees with them? And then puts on a nation wide injunction?

That's the functional disfunction I'm expecting.

Michael K said...

I even tried to read it but was blocked because I have an ad blocker.

WaPo owned by the guy who destroys mom and pop stores by the thousands.

Fabi said...

It's an important undertaking -- very pleased it has prevailed in this challenge.

YoungHegelian said...

a Watergate-era law that prohibits the government from gathering information about how Americans exercise their First Amendment rights.

I'm glad to know after the Obama administration sics the IRS on Tea Partiers, the FBI on unfriendly reporters & their families, releases wire taps with illegal unredacted info on American citizens, does nothing when Republican political rallies are shut down by lefty thugs, brings law suits against religious organizations who were following the doctrines of their faiths that were perfectly okay the day before yesterday & 200 years before, that Common Cause has finally found itself a 1st amendment right it wishes to defend.

Better late than never, I guess.

Lem said...

It's a fund raising scheme.

See... they can't afford to fly to Hawaii and argue in front of the resistance judge ;-)

SukieTawdry said...

Since the suit was filed in the District of Columbia, the appeal would go to the DC Circuit. That's Merrick Garland's court.

cubanbob said...

Isn't there a compelling government interest that only legally qualified individuals cast votes in federal elections and that elections are fraud free? As for the breach of privacy argument by Common Cause, are jokes allowed in pleadings?

Chuck said...

Fabi said...
It's an important undertaking -- very pleased it has prevailed in this challenge.


Complete agreement. Kris Kobach, Hans von Spakovsky and Ken Blackwell are three good guys to have on this commission.

Hopefully, Trump can get out of their way. Every interviewer who talks about the commission peppers the members (or their surrogates) about the many indefensible things that Trump has said about voting, voter fraud and the 2016 election. This is a tough enough fight, without that rear-guard action.

Chuck said...

SukieTawdry said...
Since the suit was filed in the District of Columbia, the appeal would go to the DC Circuit. That's Merrick Garland's court.

It is the court that was packed by Obama, when Harry Reid did away with filibusters for federal nominees below the level of SCOTUS.

Big Mike said...

Only Democrats, their NGO allies, and Deep Staters are unconcerned with assuring that only people who are eligible to vote do, in fact, vote. I wonder why that is?

cubanbob said...

Chuck can't you give Trump some credit when its due? If the commission finds nothing then the integrity of the voting process is enhanced in the voters eyes. If irregularities are found, then the sooner they are addressed, the better. After all, who is in favor of suspicious elections?

Gahrie said...

Voting isn't a First Amendment Right...it is not even a right, it is a privilege.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

eric said...Good to hear. But won't they just appeal until they find a judge who agrees with them? And then puts on a nation wide injunction?

"It's not over until we win."

Chuck said...

cubanbob said...
Chuck can't you give Trump some credit when its due? If the commission finds nothing then the integrity of the voting process is enhanced in the voters eyes. If irregularities are found, then the sooner they are addressed, the better. After all, who is in favor of suspicious elections?

I don't understand your comment.

Long before Donald Trump became a candidate, I was posting favorable comments about Kobach and von Spakovsky (and a third guy not on the Commission, Professor Brad Smith of Capital University) on this blog's comments pages.

I like this Commission. I like its members. I encourage their work. I worry only that Trump will make their work harder with stupid and untrue comments, Tweets, etc.

Fabi said...

"I like this Commission. I like its members. I encourage their work. I worry only that Trump will make their work harder with stupid and untrue comments, Tweets, etc."

I have to agree with my virtual golfing buddy Chuck 100% on this comment. Trump can only harm the process if he lets his Tweet flag fly during the conduct of this commission.

johns said...

but Chuck, would there even be a voter commission if not for Trump?

Michael K said...

"would there even be a voter commission if not for Trump?"


Shhhhhh.

The LLR is at peace, for once.

cubanbob said...

Chuck said...
cubanbob said...
Chuck can't you give Trump some credit when its due? If the commission finds nothing then the integrity of the voting process is enhanced in the voters eyes. If irregularities are found, then the sooner they are addressed, the better. After all, who is in favor of suspicious elections?

I don't understand your comment.

Long before Donald Trump became a candidate, I was posting favorable comments about Kobach and von Spakovsky (and a third guy not on the Commission, Professor Brad Smith of Capital University) on this blog's comments pages.

I like this Commission. I like its members. I encourage their work. I worry only that Trump will make their work harder with stupid and untrue comments, Tweets, etc."

This why. He appointed the commission. Since 1960 there has been alleged voter fraud in presidential elections (among others). Yet not one prior Republican president actually went as far as Trump has. Does the guy talk trash sometimes? Yes. However his trash talking aside, if a real inquiry is done and evidence of illegalities are found, then all of Trump's bombast won't alter that fact. This is what I mean by not giving the guy credit when credit is due. I specifically mentioned Republicans since I have yet to hear of any Republican presidential candidate ever benefiting from voter fraud. Certainly not in the last ninety years but I maybe wrong.

cubanbob said...

Come to think of it Chuck, if illegalities are found and they are widespread and fairly common ( that being the presumed suspicion) then Motor Voting and same day registration and voting and lack of ID become problematic which is something I suspect the Democrats would rather not be looked at to closely.

Bruce Hayden said...

Couldn't get through the WaPo pay Wall, but did find the same on Ann's NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/us/politics/trump-voter-fraud-panel.html

Which showed its biases with:

"The panel, which was created after the president falsely claimed that millions of illegal votes cost him the popular vote in 2016, has come under siege from many organizations that have filed lawsuits accusing the commission of violating federal privacy laws.",

And then bolstered that claim with a Jan article that again calls it a false claim, and bases that in multiple fact checkers - ignoring, of course, that those "fact checkers" had no more credibility than did the NYT itself.

Hello - that is part of why there is a commission - with one state, that coincidentally makes it easy for illegal immigrants (and other illegal voters) to sign up to vote, then doesn't bother checking to see if they did vote, providing the entirety of Crooked Hillary's popular vote margin nation wide.

johns said...

My liberal friends genuinely believe that voter fraud is no big deal, because they don't read about it in the New York Times. The Democratic Party of the big cities is almost entirely separate from the educated liberals. The city machines are the real mother lode of votes in most elections. Long ago under Richard J Daley I did volunteer work for the Independent Voters of Illinois, canvassing neighborhoods to see if addresses on the voter roles existed, and acting as a poll watcher in one of the River Wards. I knew poll watchers who were physically threatened if they tried to challenge a voter who showed up multiple times.
So I think that the integrity of the system is an enormous swamp that needs draining. Maybe something will actually come of Trump's commission. I can't wait

Mike Sylwester said...

One of the Democrats' top priorities is to prevent any investigation of voting fraud.

Historically, the Democratic Party is the party of voting fraud.

There will be lots of racism accusations. Investigation of voting fraud is racist.

Birkel said...

Chuck believes this commission did spring from the forehead of Zeus.

Appropriate on the Althouse blog.

And now I'll be forced to crowdsource $1000 to get Meade to take pictures of Zeus and another $1000 to get Althouse to give us a Chuck-free-for-all post.

This is getting expensive.

Michael K said...

I've been reading about the life of Lyndon Johnson via Caro's audio bio.

Now I;m on the 1948 Senate election that Johnson stole from Coke Stevenson, probably the last honest Texas Democrat.

Typically, the Johnson campaign accused Stevenson of being just another crooked politician. He wasn't and Lyndon stole the election by 87 votes.
The Democrats objected vociferously when Caro's book came out in 1990. The usual suspects (The New Republic) accused Caro of falsifying the story.

At least the NY Times let Caro write a rebuttal to the slander of Stevenson.

Lyndon was the king of vote fraud, even doing it in college elections.

Francisco D said...

Our resident LLR knows something about vote fraud through practical experience. It doesn't really exist.

He was a supposedly Republican election worker in Detroit where he saw nothing ... nothing amiss!

The Sgt. Schultz of the GOPe.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

WaPo owned by the guy who destroys mom and pop stores by the thousands.

Red Alert! Red Alert! Anti-capitalist commie in the house!

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

WaPo owned by the guy who destroys mom and pop stores by the thousands.

Dude, they're maximizing profit and enhancing shareholder value.

What have mothers and fathers ever done for our capitalist free-market system?

Birkel said...

In which TTR is correct, in spite of the sarcasm that tells readers he doesn't believe he is correct.

tim maguire said...

In a devastating blow to the defenders of voter fraud...

Birkel said...

Now that voter fraud is under assault, one wonders if upcoming elections will have statistically different results (outside the 95% confidence level) from recent analogues.

A lot of bank fraud is discovered after the guilty employee leaves. Same with shrinkage in retail sales environments.

I expect there will be a lot of voter fraud uncovered. Inversely proportional to the amount of complaining.

Chuck said...

Francisco D said...
Our resident LLR knows something about vote fraud through practical experience. It doesn't really exist.
He was a supposedly Republican election worker in Detroit where he saw nothing ... nothing amiss!
The Sgt. Schultz of the GOPe.

You nasty fucking lying piece of shit. I worked the 2000-2012 elections in Detroit. I did not work the 2016 election. And no, I did not see any in-person voting fraud. I did see some irregularities, and reported them. I was asked to sign affidavits in some cases.

What is so hateful and inexcusable about your post is that you have come after me before on this subject, citing some bullshit you saw about Detroit in 2016 on some alt-right site. And against my better judgment, I engaged with you and corrected you. You don't seem to recall. So now, just fuck off.

I dunno; maybe I should be happy for morons like you who have these cartoonish notions of voter fraud. You hear this crap; you believe Trump, and you voted for him. I hope you'd be voting for Kris Kobach if you lived in Kansas, or Ken Blackwell if you lived in Ohio. But I'm not sure. I don't really know what motivates TrumpWorld. Cartoonish stuff, apparently.

Anyway, yeah I am glad Trump appointed the commission. I already said that. I'm glad he's staffed it the way that he did.

For anybody who thinks that Republicans have never done anything about election law reform before Trump, I say "WHAT?" Election law is largely a state matter. And in red state after red state all across the country, Republicans have done more to advance the cause of election law reforms than Donald Trump has ever dreamed of. I mean that literally. I don't think Donald Trump even has an inkling, of what Republicans have already done.

And just look at the Wikipedia page of Hans von Spakovsky, and his history through the Bush years. Including a recess appointment by the Bush Administration to the FEC. Because that's how bad they wanted him there, against the wishes of Democrats in the Senate.

John said...

CubanBob asked who is in favor of suspicious elections.

Deniers are.

John Henry

Fabi said...

It really doesn't much matter if Trump has an inkling as to what has been done before, Chuck. The benefit -- as you noted above -- is that for the first time this issue is getting attention from the White House.

Molly said...

The danger of Trump pronouncements is that after the commission has established (presuming they do) that voter fraud exists and is a substantial problem, people will say "Well it's not the millions that Trump has claimed so, the commission proves Trump lied," and will ignore the more important conclusion that "the commission proves that voter fraud is a problem."

Also, for background (and for those under the age of say 50) google "walking around money".

John said...

Michael K,

Yes, Amazon has put a lot of companies out of business. But their various platforms have given tens of thousands of others opportunities to start businesses that they would not otherwise have had.

I've published 5 books on Amazon's CreateSpace publishing platform. I get enough money from them most months to cover my car payment.

I published another book via a conventional publisher. My royalties will just about cover a nice meal at Olive Garden every 6 months for my wife and I and maybe one or two of the kids.

(I still think you need to republish your book on disease. I'll be happy to do it for you, if you want, for a cut of the royalties)

You know where to find me.

John Henry

John said...

Re Amazon putting people out of business:

Anyone remember A&P? It was a chain of supermarkets that, at one time, sold over half of all the groceries in the US.

pantyknotting about A&P's dominance led to a number of fair trade laws. One congressman, Wright Patman made a pretty good career out of demagoging A&P. We still suffer from some of his stupid laws.

A&P is dead.

Remember Sears? Perhaps even more dominant than Amazon in it's heyday.

Sears is dead.

Squeamish revolutionary said:
"Dude, they're maximizing profit and enhancing shareholder value. "

Actually, they are not. Amazon famously did not make profits for many years. They did not make profit as a business strategy. Bezos said that if he made a profit, he would have to give some of it to the govt they would waste it. He wanted to keep it to grow Amazon.

He was focused, as any corporation is supposed to be by law, on maximizing shareholder value. Not on profit.

They do make a small profit these days. I suspect they can't avoid it.

Bezos gets a salary and no bonuses. There are a couple dozen people in the company who make many multiples of what he does.

Good on him. I am a huge Amazon fan and customer.

I had a bunch of stock I bought at about $75 back in the day. I wish I had held on to it. Don't have any now.

John Henry

John said...

Now off to watch another Ep of The Last Tycoon on Amazon Prime.

John Henry

Birkel said...

That poster sure does have a potty mouth. If you're not careful he will threaten to twist your arm like he threatened Greta van Susteren. Or he will discuss your medical issues like he does with an eleven year old, by denying and recapping what he never said.

Between threats against women and children, and sperging on Althouse, it's a wonder that poster has any time to make completely accurate predictions about election results in the state where he legitimately knows nearly everything.

Later, he will fly his doghouse in a dogfight with the Red Baron.

eric said...

This why. He appointed the commission. Since 1960 there has been alleged voter fraud in presidential elections (among others). Yet not one prior Republican president actually went as far as Trump has. Does the guy talk trash sometimes? Yes. However his trash talking aside, if a real inquiry is done and evidence of illegalities are found, then all of Trump's bombast won't alter that fact. This is what I mean by not giving the guy credit when credit is due. I specifically mentioned Republicans since I have yet to hear of any Republican presidential candidate ever benefiting from voter fraud. Certainly not in the last ninety years but I maybe wrong.

Many years ago I was talking to a high school friend who has been involved in California politics since he was a little boy. His Uncle was a California politician and he became a consultant after college.

Our conversation was something like this:

Me: "We need to stop the Democrats from cheating in elections."

Him: "Everyone cheats in elections. Even the Republicans. You can't win anymore without cheating."

Me: Shocked face.

My friend is a National Review life long Republican hater of Trump sorta guy. We had this conversation back around the time they were re-counting votes in Florida to try and make sure the AlGore won.

My point is simply this: Without Trump, we wouldn't have this commission. Because Republicans and Democrats are too heavily invested in voter fraud.

All the bums need to be thrown out. All of them, on both sides.

Francisco D said...

Chuck wrote: "You nasty fucking lying piece of shit. "

Stay classy boy. You are surely convincing people of your honesty and integrity.

How can anyone gainsay your eloquence?

Thomas W said...

Truly amusing would be for the court to instead rule that all state laws permitting political parties (and others) to get voter lists violate the first amendment, which is the logical conclusion of the Common Cause lawsuit.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Blogger Francisco D said...
Chuck wrote: "You nasty fucking lying piece of shit. "

Mommy Mommy Mommy! Chuck is being mean to the other commenters! He's doing that thing!

Jon Ericson said...

Chuck = Gollum.
No? Yes? Uncertain?

Jon Ericson said...

Incognito mode gets me everywhere.

Jon Ericson said...

Trolls and mobys hardest hit.
LET'S HEAR IT FROM THE LIT SIDE.
(cough) sorry.

Comanche Voter said...

District Judge Royce Lambeth--bless his heart--has a long track record of not being willing to put up with progressive bull dust. He has, on occasion, gotten quite testy when he is being jerked around and his orders re discovery and such are ignored by progressive folks who appear before his court. So I'm not surprised when he tells Common Cause to take a hike. Whether he's upheld by the D. C. Circuit is another question. Sometimes it's not enough to be right.

cubanbob said...

@ Thomas W that would be cosmically amusing. Truly if that were to happen that would be the ultimate expression of the adage " be careful what you wish for, you may get it."

FIDO said...

Can you imagine a headline like 'Two million illegal voters on California rolls'?

That would take quite a bit of wind out of the sails of the 'popular vote' brigade, who think the only valid election is one where they win.

Bear in mind, I do not wish any false findings. However, I suspect that California, New Jersey, Illinois and New York State, and particularly New York City, have made next to no effort to do any serious oversight of their rolls for a LONG time.