Privacy Watchdog Sues Trump's Election Committee Over Voter Data (engadget.com) 343
From a report: When the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity sent a letter to all 50 states seeking personal, identifying information on all voters in the US, at least 44 states refused in some part. Trump signed an executive order last May to create this commission while claiming that millions of people had voted illegally. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has taken issue with this request, as well, and has filed a lawsuit accusing the Commission of violating the privacy of American voters. EPIC also asserts that the original request asks states to send the data to a non-secure website, making the data vulnerable to identity theft and financial fraud. Not to mention political agendas. EPIC is also seeking information about "the failure to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment," and has filed for a temporary restraining order "to block the Commission's efforts."
scientists and statisticians on the job, you thin? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the flavor of the week for the administration. It's one thing they are putting out there to see if it flies, and that's about how long their interest and dedication to doing the job right will last. There are people (secretaries of state, registrars, data scientists) whose entire lives are dedicated to maintaining and verifying and analyzig voter rolls. Who do you trust to handle and come to conclusions about this kind of data conscientiously?
As the Republicans say, when the Federal Government comes knocking with the line "I'm here to help" you should be scared. They're right in this case.
Re:scientists and statisticians on the job, you th (Score:5, Informative)
...which I happen to think that voter records are something that a federal government could legitimately have reasons to demand accurate and unified data on...
I'm not disagreeing with your overall comment, but some federal governments may legitimately ask for this, but the executive office of the United States of America cannot. The executive branch has no role whatsoever in elections.
Article I, Section 4 of the constitution states:
Section. 4.
Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
It is up to the states to control elections, Congress can pass laws that can make and alter elections nation wide. The Executive office plays no role. Article 2:
Section. 1. ...
Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The states are also in charge of their electors in the electoral college for the President of the United States. The President is not involved. The President should not get involved in the sausage making of the office of the President, as it would be a conflict of interest and cross the boundaries of the balance of power.
The twelfth amendment [constitutioncenter.org] altered the way the electoral college worked, but it left un-changed the fact that the States, and not the federal government, is in charge of elections.
So it is true that some federal governments may have an interest in this, the federal government of the United States has an extremely limited role. The executive branch has no role in this whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you want fair elections or not? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Democrats raised the loudest stick about elections being hacked. The Green party even raised millions to go over votes to check for validity across a few states...
Well then lets check, lets check everywhere the full extent of votes really being hacked, of votes really being cast illegally. What is the issue with not checking this? They claim voter privacy but there is no such concern in regards to the federal government which owns all of the results of a national election anyway and is legally free and clear to demand any information it likes.
Pretty obviously there is a lot more voter fraud going on than many would care to admit, and they do not want it uncovered - and here I'm speaking for both parties. This is yet another glimpse of the Deep State disliking being exposed to sunlight.
Re:Do you want fair elections or not? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the states ran their own elections to choose electoral college members and the EC members voted at the national level for president. It's the presidential election that has triggered the most concern, but I'm sure there is concern about house and senate, perhaps even state level seats too, but these are all issues that affect how each state is represented and are proper matters for a state to research (perhaps with support from the federal gov).
This attempt by the administration to fish for anything they might use to bolster their fantasy that Trump won the popular vote has nothing to do with a search for the truth.
Perhaps with support... (Score:2, Insightful)
these are all issues that affect how each state is represented and are proper matters for a state to research (perhaps with support from the federal gov).
Why yes they are matters for the states to research.
However almost no states are doing so.
So the federal government has decided to do an audit. You know, like any non-crooked organization might have to do from time to time just to ensure things were on the level...
Why are people so resistant to a simple audit I wonder?
Re:Perhaps with support... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't know. Why don't you ask the con artist who fought tooth and nail to stop vote recounts in three states [nytimes.com] by claiming, wait for it, there was no evidence of vote fraud [thehill.com]. The exact words used:
"There is no evidence - or even an allegation - that any tampering with Pennsylvania's voting systems actually occurred."
In Wisconsin, the recount and simultaneous audit went forward despite the lawsuits [tmj4.com]. That would have seemed a perfect time to see about illegal votes but instead, the con artist and his supporters filed suit to stop the process.
As Jill Stein stated in Michigan [thehill.com]:
"In an election already tainted by suspicion, previously expressed by Donald Trump himself, verifying the vote is a common-sense procedure that would address concerns around voter disenfranchisement,"
And yet, the con artist didn't want vote recounts, or any checking of the votes. Now he does. Why the change? As stated above, it's simply to soothe his ego that he lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton. That is it. Nothing more, nothing less. He can't stand it that he received fewer votes than a woman, and it is made worse that it was Hillary.
Re: (Score:2)
Went through this with dubya in 2000. You can see creepy shadows in any data if you stare at it hard enough. Rely on hard evidence. Like the long lines you can see with your own eyes.
Re:Do you want fair elections or not? (Score:5, Insightful)
We all know that all this info will be rolled up into a highly insecure database and just behind-the-scenes handed over to companies like Cambridge Analytica. Or there will be some "cyber intrusion" and the data will be leaked...AND this cyber-incident will be used by "lawmakers" to clamp down even more on our distinguishing online freedoms.
Re:Do you want fair elections or not? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you know who the people are and when they vote your gerrymandering of the districts can get a whole lot more effective. Just saying.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Do you want fair elections or not? (Score:5, Interesting)
you now refuse to allow anyone to study the issue.
Not anyone. These people in particular. The head of the committee should have been too embarrassed to show his face in public after he made a big issue about one dead guy voting and they found said "dead guy" mowing his lawn. And Ken Blackwell? Please. It;s a rogues gallery of people who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near our electoral system.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Democrats didn't raise any sticks about the election itself being hacked, you just made that up.
Please... they screamed it very loudly. They are still screaming it.
In fact, the Democrats were calling the Republicans "unpatriotic" for not blindly believing it.
Re: (Score:2)
We've heard from the purple sky people now...
Re: (Score:2)
There's no such thing as a national election in the US. One votes for ones state's electors.
Re: (Score:2)
The Green party even raised millions to go over votes to check for validity across a few states...
No, the Green party raised millions to have actual elections officials double-check the ballots. That's a world apart from having a bunch of D.C. hacks run amateur database searches until they get something that they think looks fishy, but isn't, and then go tweeting around that the system is rigged despite not actually having any evidence for it... and, in the meantime, getting themselves hacked by every identity thief in the world because it is plain they do not know the fuck of what they do with compute
Re: (Score:2)
There are bigger problems than voter fraud in the US. Mainly the gerrymandering of ridings (districts) and creation of laws to disenfranchise certain groups from voting. The fact that politicians are allowed to set their own districts is so baffling to me. In Canada ridings are determined by an independent body. They have to follow a set of rules such as trying to create the simplest shape (or at least it can't go and try to pick out separate blocks or houses) and should try to use boundary lines such as r
Re: (Score:3)
McCarthy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:McCarthy (Score:4, Informative)
What they're all REALLY afraid of (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Put all of the data in a big Hadoop cluster.
2. Throw in social security records.
3. MapReduce/Spark
4. Nice big graphical charts that lay bare how absolutely cluster fucked our election system actually is in terms that even someone with an 80 IQ can understand.
My bet:
1. You'll find a lot of UMC voters double voting in different states where they have legal residences.
2. You'll find a lot of dead voters still voting.
3. You'll find a lot of immigrants.
If anything, I expect to find that felons are the least problematic group as most of them won't give two shits about voting if it steers them anywhere near a repeat offense that sends them back to prison.
Re:What they're all REALLY afraid of (Score:5, Informative)
2. You'll find a lot of dead voters still voting.
Actually, some states have done audits. And they actually found a case of a dead guy voting. Turned out he mailed in his ballot but died before the election, when the votes are counted.
But other than that mildly amusing story, it all pretty much turned into a big nothingburger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many fraudulent votes would you accept in a general election? And if you look at my link, 20 were from CA, and 20 were from IL - neither of which was a Trump State. And this is just a sampling, it is not a comprehensive list.
I love how the mantra was "vote fraud doesn't exist!" until it's proven otherwise - then it becomes "it's so little it doesn't matter".or "it's only an issue because Trump". So how much fraud is acceptable to you? How many illegal votes, how much disenfranchisement do you want to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What they're all REALLY afraid of (Score:4, Insightful)
No. what I'm afraid of is that if they are trying to find large-scale voter fraud they are asking for the wrong data. The data they are asking for looks (to me) like the kind of data you'd want for a voter-targeting database.
All you need to find voter fraud is first name, last name, zip code, and which of the last dozen or so elections they voted in.
If you want to look for undocumented immigrants voting illegally, look in zip codes that (according to the US Census) have a high proportion of undocumented immigrants. Look for changes in voter turnout in those zip codes. If voter turnout in those zip codes is persistently and significantly increasing, you need to collect more data and look more closely, because you might have found evidence that undocumented immigrants are voting.
For multi-voters and dead voters, use the Social Security data. If Social Security only knows about 15 living Gertude Higglesteins but 21 Gertude Higglesteins voted, you have a problem.
Note that a better statistician who had more time could come up with better tests. The point is at this point we need to place upper and lower limits on the prevalence of fraudulent voting. I'm all for an independent look into that. And we can easily do it without creating a big fat juicy database that someone could steal and use for nefarious purposes.
EPIC fail (Score:2)
Sending sensitive, private financial information to CFPB? EPIC is A-OK with that!
Sending sensitive, private medical information to the Federal Data Services Hub under ACA? EPIC is A-OK with that too!
Collecting minimal voter information that's already mostly public to see whether there might be a problem with illegal voting? EPIC can't allow that!
It seems to me like EPIC is more driven by political partisanship than by a consistent concern for protecting the privacy of Americans from federal overreach.
Re: (Score:2)
Collecting minimal voter information that's already mostly [emph mine] public to see whether there might be a problem with illegal voting? EPIC can't allow that!
Yeah...it's that mostly part.
Start with an obvious one--why do they need the last four digits of my SSN?
Re: (Score:2)
They already have your entire SSN; they don't need to get that from the state.
What they want to check is whether the state's records are accurate, i.e., whether someone just made up a SSN. To do that, they compare the SSN they already have for you against the data provided by the states.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that some states cannot legally provide even that. Kansas (where Kobach is the Secretary of State) can't.
Re: (Score:2)
And that has to do with EPIC's lawsuit or the hypocrisy of their position on privacy... exactly nothing.
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE data, people (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.npr.org/sections/th... [npr.org]
"The letter, sent Wednesday to all 50 states, requests that all publicly available voter roll data be sent to the White House..."
They're asking for otherwise-PUBLICLY AVAILABLE information. They're not asking for secret stuff (why would the states have that anyway?).
Isn't it getting a little tiresome to misinterpret everything Trump does as malignantly as possible?
Re:PUBLICLY AVAILABLE data, people (Score:4, Informative)
From TFA:
"Partial, publicly-accessible voter data is already available, though the specifics vary by state. Many lawmakers who have received the Commission's request have responded in the negative. "The President's Commission has quickly politicized its work by asking states for an incredible amount of voter data that I have, time and time again, refused to release," said Louisiana Secretary of State Tom Schedler in a statement that was reported by Ars Technica. "My response to the Commission is, you're not going to play politics with Louisiana's voter data, and if you are, then you can purchase the limited public information available by law to any candidate running for office. That's it."
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it getting a little tiresome to misinterpret everything Trump does as malignantly as possible?
Maybe it would start to be if Trump ever did a single thing that wasn't malignant in nature.
All your Freedom is exported to Russia (Score:2, Funny)
Look, the problem is that we know at least 39 states were hacked, and voting machines in specific counties and precincts were disabled, and attempts were made to disenroll American voters, by Russia.
But the commission is correct that the Russian White House is trying to make it worse.
Expect new actions after Putin's lapdog gets his new marching orders from his master at the G-20.
Headline news fail? (Score:2)
It sounds like the organization is basing its complaint on headlines, instead of what was actually requested. The committee did not ask for private information, or for information that it would be illegal to provide. Rather, the committee asked for information that was available to the public. Essentially, it seems to me, the committee was looking to save a few bucks by getting the data gift-wrapped, instead of going out and getting the data itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple solution (Score:2)
Block all blue states from participating in federal elections until they can prove, either by providing data to the federal government or through an internal audit run by an independent entity, that they don't have dead people, illegal aliens or other fraud on their voter rolls. http://www.npr.org/2012/02/14/... [npr.org]
Also, we need a federal voter ID law for all federal elections. The ID can be free, but you have to spend the time up front to get it at least 2 weeks before the election. If you can't be bothered
Re: (Score:2)
There are no federal elections in the United States.
US Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 4:
1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
So, unless Congress so authorizes (and even then it's questionable), the Executive Branch of the Federal Government has no damned business at all in getting involved with elections.
Re: (Score:2)
Federal elections are the vernacular term for elections choosing the President, senators or congressmen, as opposed to state elections which involve electing state officials, or local elections which involve city/county officials. This is the vernacular and common usage of these terms, though they do not appear explicitly in the constitution. As you clearly cite, congress CAN pass laws regarding federal elections that supersede state laws as stated in Article 1, Section 4...
Here is another free civics les
Possible reasons besides ego for this action (Score:2, Interesting)
1) It's simply red meat for his supporters and nothing more. If you have friends on Facebook who are pro-Trump and pro-Republican, you have probably been appalled at some of the crazy things they think are true. I'd love to see someone take a poll to verify this, but I suspect that Trump's support
Re: (Score:2)
He also called their bluff. The left keep trying to pin a Russian/Trump collusion on their candidate's loss of the election. But when they are asked to open the books, they refuse to.
When Wisconsin opened the books after the election so Jill Stein could get a recount,
Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The voter rolls are public information that states may or may not make easy to get. They're normally available to anyone who follows the rules and pays the fee.
Or there's what California does [latimes.com].
Re: (Score:2)
They're asking for significantly more information than what is publicly available. The types of info they are asking for make it seem like the are attempting massive purges of people who are likely to vote against them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!? (Score:4, Funny)
Translation: "We have an open tab at the GSA to run this farce of a commission but we're too lazy to cross-collate the publicly available information with other non-election data sources, so you do it. Then upload it to the webserver we payed the cousin of some campaign contributor some insane amount of money to set up, which, by the way, has no security whatsoever."
To which the proper reply is "get stuffed".
Re: (Score:2)
" including, if publicly available under the laws of your state,..."
Re: Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What about states rights Mr. not-a-leftist? Or is that one of those principles you abandon once it becomes inconvenient?
Re: (Score:2)
TFA says they are asking for non-public information.
Re: (Score:2)
It's because TFA is FAKE NEWS. Pretty common these days.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No one is protecting anything except Trump's fragile ego. This whole Advisory Commission action was set into motion because Trump can't accept the fact that he lost the popular vote to Hillary. Total waste of time and money... .
I suppose you could look at it that way if you intended to keep up the partisan party line. Actually this whole thing makes good sense to me for a number of reasons.
First, Not comparing the various state's lists for duplicates allows for those who wish to commit voter fraud and vote multiple times in multiple states an easy way to do this.
Second, Some states do not have very good procedures to purge their voter rolls of various illegible voters including illegals, those who have moved out of state, peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Read the article summary. It's at the top of the page. That's part of what people are afraid of.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"If you've done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear"
- Words said before every dark chapter in history, ever.
Trump supporters are even dumber than we thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I particularly like Mississippi's response to the commission
Quoted in part: "They can go jump in the Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi is a great State to launch from."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Until losers of athletic events are euthanized, there will be no valid comparison.
Hillary was euthanized? I thought she was just sent off into the woods to sulk for a while. The "fewer yards but more points" analogy seems appropriate to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a popular vote. It just doesn't count for anything.
No, it counts for something. Just not the Presidency.
If Trump didn't think it counted, he wouldn't be claiming that he would have won it if, as he claims with no proof, that millions voted illegally for Clinton.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, hit Post too soon. Correction/clarification:
If Trump didn't think the popular vote counted, he wouldn't be claiming that he would have won it if "millions" of illegal voters hadn't voted for Clinton. There is not, and there never has been, proof that "millions" of people vote illegally. Quite the contrary: voter fraud numbers are miniscule. It's just not a problem. Trump is trying to claim that it is, and the Pence commission is political cover for that narrative.
Re:Why are they protecting RUSSIA!?!?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Quite the contrary: voter fraud numbers are miniscule. It's just not a problem.
Successful voter fraud isn't detected. You can't state that it's rare or a "minuscule" problem without at least a basic investigation into the votes cast and counted. Such an investigation would require information the commission is seeking from states. People who like to downplay the possibility of voter fraud sure like to enable it by opposing such checks, opposing voter ID requirements (even if the ID is free and easy to obtain), opposing auditable and securable voting machines (i.e., paper ballots), etc.
Whether you suspect voter fraud or you expect no voter fraud, the best way to start figuring it out is to do what the commission is trying to do.
Registering fake voters, voting multiple times, voting for other people, voting for dead people, etc. is standard fucking procedure in this country at every level. It's such a cliche that it was the basis for a Simpsons episode, and when Lisa decided to prove it, the level of "who gives a shit" was so high that she was simply handed the entire vote record. "Vote early, vote often." isn't just something people say, it's something they do.
When every single step of the game leading up to the election is rigged, do you really think they'd grow a conscience and stop at the sacred polls? Do you really think elections at the national level are any more secure than at the local level? If so, why? The scale of the election doesn't help you here, it hurts you. And you only need to "influence" a handful of states to have an impact. Hell, you can often target a handful of polling places each in a dozen counties to swing the legislative branch.
Re: (Score:3)
Successful voter fraud isn't detected.
That's a brilliant self-perpetuating delusion, worthy of the best conspiracy theorists. If a voter-fraud study turns up no evidence, it's not because there's no voter fraud, it's because the fraudsters are too good at it! And there are millions of them! Millions, I say!
You can't state that it's rare or a "minuscule" problem without at least a basic investigation into the votes cast and counted.
Well, you have a point there. Oh wait, you don't:
https://www.brennancenter.org/... [brennancenter.org]
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.politifact.com/flor... [politifact.com]
http://www.scholarsstrategynet... [scholarsst...etwork.org]
http://fortune.com/2016/10/18/... [fortune.com]
http://www.projectvote.org/ [projectvote.org]
Re:Because OF COURSE they did. (Score:5, Informative)
RI found 150k+ illegal voters a week or so ago.
Um, no, no they didn't. They found inaccuracies in the registration lists and cleared them away (which happens when they didn't vote for the past 2 elections) or marked them inactive (when election mail is sent back as undeliverable). It's normal and part of maintaining accurate voter rolls. The names cleared didn't actually vote, by definition, you understand that, right?
You fucking losers just hate being wrong, so you lash out, call people names, threaten them and in some cases try to assassinate them. At some point you wankers will either grow up or being wiped off the map. Either way, everyone wins.
I don't know who you should contact for the hypocrite of the year awards, my apologies.
Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary (Score:4, Funny)
Evidence...? ...crickets...
Also "hundreds"? That sounds like big problem which could seriously impact elections. In Tuvalu.
Re: (Score:3)
848 documented criminal convictions [amazonaws.com], and this is just a sampling.
Only 6 of those are from the 2016 election.
Or perhaps you'd like to hear from the Pew Trusts and their finding of "Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state." [pewtrusts.org], not to mention millions of dead still registered to vote... Is that enough evidence for you?
Steve Bannon, Tiffany Trump, Sean Spicer, Jared Kushner and Steven Mnuchin are all registered to vote in more than one state. Does that prove they committed voter fraud? Or could it be that being registered twice doesn't mean they tried to vote twice? How many of those 2.76 million registered in multiple states voted twice? Or even know they're registered twice? How many dead people voted? Given that records of who voted are publicly available it should be incredib
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How many do you want to allow, each election?
Very few.
How many convictions are required before you are concerned about it?
Thousands, per state, minimum. Tens of thousands in high population states.
How much fraud do you accept?
Approximately 0.01% is perfectly acceptable. The actual rate is less than that, year in and year out. 6 out of 136,628,459 is 0.0000000439%. I'm perfectly fine with a rate 100,000 times worse than that. Fortunately I don't have to settle for that.
Existing voting controls are quite good, most places. The only precincts I'm suspicious of are those with purely electronic voting, and the only part of that I'm suspicious of
Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary (Score:4, Interesting)
You may want to actually read the links you post. I know the Heritage foundation thinks you are stupid enough to read the first few pages and think that they are all "dead people voting" but you should have more respect for yourself than they do.
These convictions run the gamut from idiots trying to run for office by pretending to live in a different district, people being payed to collect petition signatures or voter registrations who tried to scam their employers instead of doing the work, politicians outright buying votes, election officials tampering with ballots, and people on absentee voting drives improperly turning in ballots for other people which is a crime even though those other people filled the ballots out themselves. And other such technicalities:
XXX admitted to improperly assisting voters in
completing their absentee ballots in the 2005 Americus mayoral
election. XXX was a candidate in that election, and on at least six
occasions, he helped voters fill out information on their ballot mailers
without signing the requisite oath indicating he had provided the
assistance. He was ordered by the State Election Board to pay a
$600 fine
Your contention that it "only breaks one way" is also false. Plenty of news articles of Trumpkins trying to double vote.
Which is dumb. As the convictions show, it is very easy to catch you doing this. Only a few fools each year try it, the rest are dissuaded by us actually enforcing existing laws using existing precautionary mechanisms.
To start screwing around with people who *should* be allowed to vote for the sake of a teeny tiny number of people to are trying to defraud the system will get us less accurate results than doing nothing at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How much fraud is "acceptable" is a matter of how many legitimate disenfranchised voters would result from the proposed remedy for said fraud. We've made this perfectly clear, so why ask yet again? Also, these particular people have made it amply clear that their primary goal is to disenfranchise voters, not prevent fraud. So again, why do you ask?
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Your answer makes no sense. You wanted proof of fraud - here it is. Apparently it's not enough. How would voters be disenfranchised by solving voter fraud? I assume those bastions of Conservatism, WI and MI, are terrible for requiring proof of ID at the voting booth, right?
How much fraud is acceptable to you?
Re: (Score:2)
Not only does my answer make sense, it's friggin obvious, unless you are either willfully ignorant or just plain dumb. And yet you ask again, so I am going to assume the former.
No your "proof" is not *nearly* enough. Not even a start.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most people vote by mail. If you move to another state and are on both voter rolls and a forwarding address. Boom, 2 ballots. I'd wager a lot of people would vote twice. Certainly a lot more than would report to jury duty in their old state.
Re:For a good laugh just imagine Obama or Hillary (Score:4, Insightful)
You obviously do not know what you are talking about. Most cases of "Fraudulent use of Absentee Ballots" result from amateur volunteers not knowing that there are very strict rules about how absentee ballots must be filled out and delivered. In fact a huge number of the cases in that document are against (n00b) candidates themselves and many in minor off-year elections because that is where idiots think they can get away with it and it might make a difference. Barely anyone bothers in large elections... there's no way to pull it off.
See, what happens is this: Since ballots are usually counted in precinct, one of the little old ladies making bingo money running the roles, counting absentee votes or serving as a judge for one of the parties, bless their gossipy souls, has a very high chance of having personally known the dead person you try to vote for. The more dead people you try to vote for, the greater the odds she'll call the policeman over from the corner to ask you a few questions, or send one to the address from which the absentee ballot was requested.
So you cannot hang your hat on the number "848", as puny as it is, especially when averaged out over a dozen election cycles.
D.C. political operatives trawling through a giant list of voters are going to make huge mistakes because they lack this local perspective. They'll claim a bunch of dead people voted, and we'll find them mowing their lawns, yet again. And since their only intent is to cause chaos in the first place, they'll care even less. They might as well just pretend they went and got the data themselves and go publish their results now, since they'll make up whatever shit they feel like anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been proven to overturn at least one election, which would indicate it most likely influenced many others
That logically does not follow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And this is why we need Voter ID (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And this is why we need Voter ID (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So what we can take away from this is that so long as the State is already Blue, voter I.D. laws are OK, but in States that arent Blue yet, voter I.D. laws are racist.
Re: (Score:2)
"So what we can take away from this is that so long as the State is already Blue, voter I.D. laws are OK"
No, what we can take away is that some states seem more likely to try to implement a poll tax via voter ID, which is illegal, and other states are just implementing identification of properly registered voters, which is legal.
Protip: if you wan't to hide the fact you are implementing a poll tax, don't go on record that having fewer poor and minority voters is a goal.
Re:And this is why we need Voter ID (Score:4, Informative)
Now, one could claim that it's all due to budget cuts, or such. That it's not some type of voter disenfranchisement plan. Perhaps if this wasn't in Alabama, that might be believable. I'll let you find the numerous citations on Alabama's long history of racism, segregation, and so on...shouldn't take you too long. Hanlon's Razor should always be considered...but when it comes to Alabama and racism, so should Heinlein's Razor:"...but don't rule out malice."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The New York Times published the exact responses of the elections officials here: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/06/30/us/ap-us-voting-commission-state-responses.html
Almost all of them are along the lines of "we'll gladly turn over the information that our state considers public if the commission just fills out the standard paperwork for requesting it, but we aren't turning over the substantial amount of non-public data the commission is requesting without a court order".
Re:voter registration records are public (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is, this is being seen as a blatant attempt by the Trump administration to purge voter rolls of properly registered voters. Unlike Trump's claim of having won the popular vote, this doesn't come out of thin air.
Kris Kobach, the vice-chair of of the Commission of Election Integrity, tried to purge Kansas' voter rolls of 20,000 properly registered voters. He had to be threatened with Contempt of Court before he put them back on the voter rolls.
Then there's Ken Blackwell, another member of the Commission of Election Integrity. During his tenure as Ohio Secretary of State, his office fucked up TWICE, accidentally releasing private data on millions of Ohio voters, including SSNs.
Then there's Hans von Spakovsky, another member of the commission, who, while at the Justice Department promoted voter ID policies in Georgia that would disproportionately affect African-American voters. He had previously published a law review article supporting that policy under a pseudonym, and should have recused himself from the Justice Department decision. He also tried to inject partisan politics into FEC policy during his short time there. And he's no stranger to making wild claims about voter fraud either, claiming that 1400 votes were illegally cast during the 2008 Minnesota Senate election won by Al Franken. (No evidence of this was found.)
Not exactly a stellar cast of characters.
Re: (Score:2)
The best part is that Kris Kobach as Kansas Secretary of State has denied in part the request from Kris Kobach as vice-chair of of the Commission.
Even he doesn't think responding on total is a good idea.
Re:voter registration records are public (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but how will Trump make mountain out of molehill if his silly commission is only reporting from data that can be easily checked? Rather, they intended to get their "secret" data, report their Trumped up findings, and then fail to release any data because they'll argue it contains PII including SS numbers.
There are two rules of Trump: (1) he does everything only for himself, (2) he destroys everything he touches.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone with a suspicious mind might think that Trump has something to hide by not releasing his Tax returns. At least that situation has some reasoning behind it (conflicts of interest, foreign investments/liabilities, etc), this "election committee" is pointless. Election fraud is about as rare as finding a winning lottery ticket fluttering in the wind.
Where are your tax returns? Do you have something to hide?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, that doesn't wash.
First, every President for the last 40 years has released his tax returns as a matter of good faith.
Second, when Trumpkin was demanding Obama's Birth Certificate (his fucking BIRTH CERTIFICATE! Like someone could get that far in the election without anyone bothering to check that they're a citizen first?!?) he said - more than once - that he would release his tax returns if he got elected. For the last 6 months we've been waiting and he's been pretending he didn't say a thing. To bo