Voting

Demise of Trump Voter Fraud Commission Is a Victory for Federalism

The President shut down the commission because numerous states refused to turn over voter data, citing concerns about privacy and state sovereignty.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach with Donald Trump, July 19, 2017.

Yesterday, the White House announced that President Trump has issued an executive order shutting down his Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, which was planning to investigate alleged voter fraud around the country. The Commission was headed by Vice President Mike Pence (chair of the commission) and Vice Chairman Kris Kobach, the highly partisan Secretary of State of Kansas known for initiating dubious prosecutions, and promoting highly restrictive voting laws. Kobach oversaw most of the commission's activities. The White House statement accompanying the order said that Trump decided to shut down the commission because "many states have refused to provide the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity with basic information relevant to its inquiry." The statement also noted that Trump chose not to "engage in endless legal battles" to get the states to turn over the information—a strong indication that the administration probably expected to lose many of those battles.

Forty-four states, as well as the District of Columbia, rejected some or all of Kobach's demands that they turn over information such as the names, addresses, party registrations, and last four digits of Social Security numbers of voters. State officials cited concerns about privacy and state sovereignty as reasons to reject the Commission's demands. The objecting states included many with Republican-controlled state governments. Mississippi GOP Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann suggested that the Commission should "go jump in the Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi is a great State to launch from." He rejected the request, citing "our State's right to protect the privacy of our citizens by conducting our own electoral processes."

State governments' successful resistance to the Commission's demands is a victory for privacy, and also for federalism as a constraint on overreaching by the federal government. It is dangerous to trust the feds with sensitive information on voters across the country—especially, but certainly not exclusively, when the presidency is held by a man with as little respect for civil liberties as Trump. This issue, along with others such as the litigation challenging the administration's efforts to punish sanctuary cities, is an example of how state and local governments (many of them liberal Democratic ones) are using federalism to resist Trump. In many cases, the legal doctrines in question were first developed by conservative judges, often over the bitter opposition of the left. Perhaps these cases will help lead the left to rethink some of their traditional skepticism about federalism and judicial enforcement of constitutional constraints on federal power, as some liberals have already begun to do. At the same time, we should not be overly optimistic, as "fair weather federalism" is a longstanding problem on both sides of the political spectrum.

Most election law experts believe that in-person voter fraud is extremely rare, and that there is no evidence to support Trump's claims that it is widespread, and accounted for his loss of the popular vote in the 2016 election. But even if you believe it is a more serious problem than most experts conclude, a commission headed by a highly biased figure like Kobach was hardly the right way to seek solutions. Moreover, subject to the constraints imposed by constitutional rights, the Constitution leaves most issues of election administration to state governments. It is they who should deal with voter fraud.

Federal control over election procedures would potentially enable the party that controls Congress and the White House to bias voting rules around the country in its own favor. Similar abuses can and do occur at the state level, as well. But at least pro-Democratic bias in liberal states is offset by Republican bias in conservative ones, and vice versa.

Kobach claims that the demise of the commission will not end the administration's efforts to investigate voter fraud, because they will be continued by the Department of Homeland Security. But presumably DHS will face the same legal obstacles to getting state data as the Commission did.

NEXT: California Is Taxing the Hell Out of Pot, but Washington Is Even Greedier

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. at least pro-Democratic bias in liberal states is offset by Republican bias in conservative ones, and vice versa.

    Perhaps you could provide some examples where liberal states have enacted voting rules that make it difficult fro likely Republican voters to vote. If not, then this “balanced” statement is not accurate at all.

    1. California went to a “jungle primary” that leveraged a Dem statewide majority and resulted in both US senator candidates in 2016 being Dems. This will be the norm in statewide elections going forward.

      GOP supporters can still vote but their votes statewide are just illusory. They can now vote only for ruling party candidates.

      1. This appears to be false. First, the primary system was adopted by California voters as a constitutional amendment. Second, the two nominees resulted from the Republicans have a large number of candidates with no front-runner. The number of GOP voters in California is absolutely large enough to produce a nominee in the general election if the party chooses someone acceptable to the GOP faithful.

        1. “This appears to be false.”

          Nothing you said makes my comment “false”

          The question was “where liberal states have enacted voting rules”, so the fact that voters enacted them is meaningless.

          GOP voters are now allowed to cast meaningful votes if only one GOPer runs in the primary, maybe. Very democratic.

          1. “GOP voters are now allowed to cast meaningful votes if only one GOPer runs in the primary, maybe. Very democratic.”

            Fifteen Republicans ran in 2012, and Elizabeth Emken was on the ballot.

          2. hi Bob – your comment is not false, just disingenuous. The OP, to which bernard11 was responding, referred specifically to rules enacted by Democratic or Republican controlled legislators. You knew that but tendentiously ignored it.

        2. “The number of GOP voters in California is absolutely large enough to produce a nominee in the general election if the party chooses someone acceptable to the GOP faithful.”

          Like through some kind of primary election?

      2. They can now vote only for ruling party candidates.

        Not true. Its limited to the top two voter getters in the primaries. Republicans in California in recent years have not run strong candidates for Senate. Usually only extreme candidates or nutcase. And based on who is declared on the Republican side – it looks like there will be a repeat of that in 2018 (as Faulconer and other more mainstream GOP candidates have already declined to run).

        1. “Not true. Its limited to the top two voter getters in the primaries.” which has been rigged against the GOP.

          1. We’ve discussed this before, Bob.

            In a state with California’s political leaning, a jungle primary gives conservatives a meaningful, though marginal, option versus the previous meaningless feelgood ones.

            1. I have concrete data, the 2016 senate race, that supports my POV.

              You have …

              1. You don’t have concrete data unless you reify the counterfactual.

                1. Don’t ask him about 2012.

            2. Don’t be ridiculous. State-wide California elections are *OBVIOUSLY* rigged against the GOP, because there are more Democratic that Republican voters. So unfair.

              1. They’re rigged because the only election that counts as a matter of constitutional law is the general election. And California has deprived its voters of freedom to vote for who they want in the general election.

                They could probably get away with a jungle primary, but banning write in votes was a step too far. THAT is what violated the right to vote.

                1. By that logic, primaries deprive voters of at least as much freedom.

                  1. No, because primaries aren’t constitutionally required elections. There don’t even have to be primaries, (Some states use caucuses.) and states don’t need to be involved in them. They’re just mechanisms private organizations use to chose their candidates.

                    The only elections that are constitutionally significant, at least so far as the federal government is concerned, are general elections, and by banning write in votes California has deprived its citizens of the right to freely vote for whoever they want.

      3. The jungle primary is the best chance that Republicans have at winning a statewide seat. Republicans hadn’t won a statewide Senate seat since 1988.

        1. “Republicans hadn’t won a statewide Senate seat since 1988.:

          Then rigging the primary was just unnecessary and done solely to eliminate the rights of the minority.

          1. Just invoking rigging and not engaging the game theory is not making your case.

        2. No, you miss the point: It’s a vote suppression mechanism for the general election: Without anybody to vote for, for most of the offices, Republicans largely don’t even bother voting in California.

          That’s why the Presidential election was so lop-sided there. President was literally the only office many Republicans would have the opportunity to vote for a candidate of their own party in.

          1. Why the crap would California need voter suppression for Republicans, Brett?

            1. To ensure no accident like Alabama happens.

              1. That sure is some excellent predictive abilities the California populous has, then.

                1. I don’t think you need to posit a deep Democratic conspiracy in California for them to be sick of being an effectively one-party state.

                  California Democrats are corrupt (largely due to the one-party problem jungle primaries may address), but that tends to make them less than clever.

              2. If Alabama had a jungle primary, the same two candidates would have emerged.

                1. Not true, Moore and Strange both got more votes than Jones. Jones finishes third in a jungle primary.

                  1. Not true, Moore and Strange both got more votes than Jones. Jones finishes third in a jungle primary.

                    Seems the idiots have just got to stand up and be counted.

                    The only way I can connect this statement to actual facts is to assume you’re counting the number of votes Jones got in the Democratic primary and comparing it to the number of votes each of Moore and Strange got in the Republican primary. But it seems obvious that this isn’t a good proxy for how they would have done in a hypothetical “jungle primary,” since Jones got more votes in the general than the Republicans did, combined, in their primary, and about eight times as many votes as he got in the Democratic primary.

                    No, the most likely outcome of a jungle primary in Alabama would have been a Jones/Moore runoff.

                    1. “assume you’re counting the number of votes Jones got in the Democratic primary and comparing it to the number of votes each of Moore and Strange got in the Republican primary”

                      Yes, actual facts compared to your speculation.

                    2. Bob, a word on technique:

                      You are in the right about the Alabama hypothetical; there is no concrete proof of what would have happened were Alabama to have had a jungle primary.

                      But you didn’t go with just saying that was an unsupported conjecture. Instead, you pointed to irrelevant numbers and then said ‘at least I have numbers.’ Managing to snatch wrongness from the jaws of correctitude.

                    3. Yes, actual facts compared to your speculation.

                      I just explained why your “actual facts” do not support the conclusion you purport to draw from them. Do keep up.

            2. “Why the crap would California need voter suppression for Republicans, Brett?”

              Why the crap would Alabama need voter suppression for Democrats, Sarcastr0?

              1. Because Alabama has House races.

                California’s Jungle primaries are only for statewide offices.

          2. “President was literally the only office many Republicans would have the opportunity to vote for a candidate of their own party in.”

            What are you talking about? Nearly all of the US Rep Districts had Republicans on the ballot in 2016. Same with State Senators. Same with State Assemblymembers (although several districts didn’t have a Democrat on the ballot). See for yourself.

            1. Thanks, NToJ. Brett is often wrong, but not often so glaringly.

      4. The jungle primary clearly favors parties which have a very strong advantage in their states which in California is the Democrats of course. You essentially marginalize the other party by swamping their primary. This is borne out when in 2016 there were only two Democrats running against each other in the general election for Boxer’s seat. You can argue whether it was necessary in California of all places but you can’t argue against the fact that the election where the jungle primary went into effect one party gained the ballot all to themselves and the republicans of california were deprived of their voice even more.

        1. okay so it looks like it was put in during 2012 but the results are pretty much as I said anyway.

        2. If you are reductive enough to see the only metric as ‘good party’ ‘bad party’ then California is a lost cause.

          If you allow individuals of the same party to differ from each other even a little, then the jungle primary is a welcome change.

    2. How about how Democrat states have enacted policies to allow non-citizens to vote, who are not legally allowed to vote, and therefore counteract Republican voters? It doesn’t matter if you can vote if the Democrats offset it with fraudulent votes.

      1. Which state allows non-citizens to vote?

        1. Local elections, in several states. San Francisco CA, Takoma Park, Md.

          The bigger question is the extent to which the issuance of driver’s licenses to illegals, combined with Motor Voter and a decided lack of enforcement, is resulting in illegal aliens voting. We know the rate is higher than zero, but not how high.

          We seriously need election audits in this country.

          1. Do we have any evidence that the number is greater than 100 in the entire country?

            Do we even have evidence that it’s greater than 10?

            Every “study” that claims to show widespread voter fraud has been demonstrated to be mischaracterized or extremely flamed.

            1. Of course we don’t have evidence. Because the only way to collect such evidence would be to validate the voter rolls to confirm citizenship, and then monitor the elections themselves to validate that the people who are voting are who they claim they are. But if you try to get that level of validation, someone is certainly going to call it “voter suppression”.

          2. Local elections, in several states.

            This is a lie. Maryland’s approach, allowing municipalities to decide who votes in local elections, is unusual, and San Francisco allows non-citizens to vote… for school board. Far from “several states.”

            We know the rate is higher than zero, but not how high.

            We know, too, that the rate of people voting in the wrong precincts, the rate of people voting multiple times, the rate of people voting pursuant to invalid registrations, etc., etc., is “higher than zero,” and that we surely don’t know how high those rates are, either. So where’s the pressing need to investigate all those law-violating “legals” (as long as we’re using silly slurs)?

            1. We know, too, that the rate of people voting in the wrong precincts, the rate of people voting multiple times, the rate of people voting pursuant to invalid registrations, etc., etc., is “higher than zero,” and that we surely don’t know how high those rates are, either. So where’s the pressing need to investigate all those law-violating “legals” (as long as we’re using silly slurs)?

              You operate under the mistaken assumption that voter ID requirements and audits are aimed at illegal aliens. In fact, voter ID requirements and audits are aimed at addressing all those issues among both citizens and non-citizens, among both Democrats and Republicans.

              It’s Democrats who are trying to spin this as a racial and partisan issue.

      2. Why would it be illegal for non-citizens to vote if the state makes it legal for them to vote?

        1. The Constitution of the United States.
          No State can make it legal for a non-citizen to vote in a federal election however the Democratic controlled States, like CA, refuse to check the validity of their voters.

        2. As far as I know, the Constitution does not restrict voting in state elections by those who are not US citizens. That would include voting for candidates for federal representatives and senators and presidential electors in states (all of them, now) which select presidential electors by popular vote).

          Federal law, as of 1996 (!) prohibits most non-citizen voting in federal elections. This might conflict with Article I, Section II, which requires that electors for the house have “the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” The House member is required to be a US citizen, but it seems those who voted in his or her election need not be, except by virtue of the federal law.

      3. How are these “fraudulent” if they are legal?

        1. They’re not fraudulent. They’re FRAUD!!!!-ulent.

    3. “Perhaps you could provide some examples where liberal states have enacted voting rules that make it difficult fro likely Republican voters to vote. If not, then this “balanced” statement is not accurate at all.”

      You mean like those voter id laws in Alabama that led to record black turnout in Alabama, with blacks disproportionately represented among the voters? Those kind of voting restrictions?

      1. jph, your evidence is not great.

        A single failed attempt does not invalidate the existence of the attempt, nor the possible efficacy of continued efforts in the future.

        Especially given Moore’s…exceptional characteristics.

        1. My evidence is infinitely better than the complete lack of evidence that bernard11 and you present for your claims. It’s also consistent with the vast majority of the literature examining the effects of voter id laws on minority turnout, which tend to show increased minority turnout following such laws going into effect. Simply because you are ignorant of the literature is no reason to assume everyone else is as well.

          1. The immediate bump is a reaction to the suppression attempt, but that reaction will eventually wear off and lead to a decrease.

            Your trust in the literature is contradicted by the GOP legislators who push these laws with the clear intent of suppressing minority voting.

            1. Another evidence free claim. And you go the extra mile by admitting you are simply ignoring contrary evidence in favor of your narrative. What a productive discussion this has been.

              1. Another evidence free claim.

                I’d go through the countless leaked emails where GOP officials are shown to be targeting minorities, or even recent court cases where the voter ID laws were found to be explicitly targeting minorities.

                And you go the extra mile by admitting you are simply ignoring contrary evidence in favor of your narrative.

                Actually I just pointed out why your evidence didn’t draw the conclusion you implied in the long term (an opinion I suspect the majority of the paper authors would agree with).

                Decreased Democratic votes is indeed the end. But they’re not suppressing “minority” voters, they’re suppressing “apathetic” voters, the voters who can’t be bothered to vote if it’s even slightly inconvenient.

                No. They’re suppressing voters who have trouble getting valid IDs because those voters correlate with ethnicities that tend to vote Democratic.

                And in some cases they’re trying to make getting the IDs more difficult for those same ethnicities.

                Both parties agree that the Democratic party base includes a lot of apathetic voters.

                No, you’re just stating that because you’re trying to derail a discussion for which the facts are clearly against you.

            2. Your trust in the literature is contradicted by the GOP legislators who push these laws with the clear intent of suppressing minority voting.

              I’m sure they are hoping for a decreased vote for Democrats. It’s your racism that translates this into a desire of “suppressing minority voting”.

              In any case, hopes are irrelevant to whether the policy is rational or discriminatory.

              1. Decreased Democratic votes is the end. Minority suppression is the means.

                You have had GOP legislatures commission studies of minority voting patterns that they then used to make policies to maximally target them with impediments.

                1. Decreased Democratic votes is indeed the end. But they’re not suppressing “minority” voters, they’re suppressing “apathetic” voters, the voters who can’t be bothered to vote if it’s even slightly inconvenient.

                  Both parties agree that the Democratic party base includes a lot of apathetic voters.

                  But so long as the suppression hinges on your behavior, not your race, it’s not racial suppression.

                  1. I’m not sure your disparate impact argument flies, but even if it did that does not explain the statistical targeting of minorities, nor the crowing over lower black turnout by some lower level state officials.

                2. Decreased Democratic votes is the end. Minority suppression is the means.

                  Imposing rational requirements, like ID requirements, is not “suppression” of voters even if it impacts some groups of voters more than others.

                  You have had GOP legislatures commission studies of minority voting patterns

                  They simply study Democratic voting patterns; they don’t care any more or less about whether a Democratic vote comes from a single white mom or a single black mom. The racial angle is merely a projection of your own racial prejudice.

                3. Decreased Democratic votes is the end. Minority suppression is the means.

                  Imposing rational requirements, like ID requirements, is not “suppression” of voters even if it impacts some groups of voters more than others.

                  You have had GOP legislatures commission studies of minority voting patterns

                  They simply study Democratic voting patterns; they don’t care any more or less about whether a Democratic vote comes from a single white mom or a single black mom. The racial angle is merely a projection of your own racial prejudice.

        2. A single failed attempt does not invalidate the existence of the attempt, nor the possible efficacy of continued efforts in the future.

          The problem with past disenfranchisement due to literacy tests was that such tests were subjective and administered in a discriminatory manner. Voter ID requirements are sensible, objective, common across democracies, and non-discriminatory. Your objections amount to FUD.

          Perhaps you could provide some examples where liberal states have enacted voting rules that make it difficult fro likely Republican voters to vote.

          Any state that limits absentee voting and early voting biases the vote against Republicans, who tend to work on election days, and in favor of people who obtain most of their income from the state.

          1. Voter ID requirements are sensible, objective, common across democracies, and non-discriminatory.

            You assume your answer. But! I actually agree with you – so long as the ID is free of charge.

            Any state that limits absentee voting and early voting biases the vote against Republicans, who tend to work on election days,

            Oh, I see how it is. That’s a pretty telling assumption about your political opposition that you will need to support if you want to appear at all credible in your objectivity.

            1. You assume your answer.

              No, I don’t. Democrats argue that any voting requirement (or action, for that matter) that has a racially disparate impact is discriminatory and racist. I’m saying that their position is self-serving, illogical bullshit.

              That’s a pretty telling assumption about your political opposition that you will need to support if you want to appear at all credible in your objectivity.

              It’s not an assumption, it’s a statistical fact about the demographics of both parties.

              And I’m not a Republican. I used to be a Democrat and I’m now an independent. I guess you could say both parties are “my political opposition”. However, I generally have found Republican voters to be nicer than Democratic voters even when I don’t agree with them politically.

          2. Indeed, and the Supreme court upheld literacy tests so long as they were impartially administered. Such tests have been outlawed by federal statute, not declared unconstitutional.

            The chief mechanism for specifically disenfranchising Republicans that I’m aware of is sending out military ballots late, so that they can’t be voted and get back in time to be counted.

    4. I just started 7 weeks ago and I’ve gotten 2 check for a total of $2,000…this is the best decision I made in a long time! “Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home.
      go to this site for more details….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

    5. Perhaps you could provide some examples where liberal states have enacted voting rules that make it difficult fro likely Republican voters to vote. If not, then this “balanced” statement is not accurate at all.

      The choice of election day itself is biased towards Democrats and against Republicans.

      1. Your assumption that Dems statistically don’t have jobs is unsupported, and generally partisan silliness.

        To play your game, what about retired old folks who vote GOP?

        1. Your assumption that Dems statistically don’t have jobs is unsupported, and generally partisan silliness.

          It’s quite well supported by demographic facts: there are significant, meaningful differences in employment status, race, gender, and marital status between voters of the two parties. For example, in 2009, unemployment was 15% among Democratic, and 9.9% among Republican voters (Rasmussen).

          To play your game, what about retired old folks who vote GOP?

          Since they can vote any time, it doesn’t matter whether voting falls on a working or non-working day, so they don’t compensate for the “disenfranchisement” of people who have to work on voting day. What matters is the population of people who are affected by voting on a working day, and that population is larger among Republican voters than among Democratic voters.

    6. Where is there ANY bias? It’s not as if they require people to demonstrate that they can READ or that they’re SANE or even sentient (which would wipe out 40% of Demoncraps and 20% of Republitards). Those denied the vote are mostly people who should be arrested or executed for invading America.

    7. I just started 7 weeks ago and I’ve gotten 2 check for a total of $2,000…this is the best decision I made in a long time! “Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home.
      go to this site for more details….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

  2. I wish I was quite as confident since I’ve gotten to hear some of the behind-doors discussion of voter fraud–personally I do think a routine third party audit is desirable, especially since I don’t trust the bias to offset itself between states and that still leaves you with the problem of local corruption.

    And if you’re wondering: No, the Feds aren’t a third party. They get voted for in the same elections.

    1. I’ve gotten to hear some of the behind-doors discussion of voter fraud

      Well then.

  3. Technically, doesn’t Congress have substantial “time place and manner” authority over at least elections for federal office? I’m not a big fan of interpreting the “N&P clause to extend federal power, but even I would have to concede that, with appropriate legislation, Trump would have been constitutionally entitled to demand that data. You might even leverage the 14th and 15th amendments’ enabling legislation clauses to reach state elections, too.

    So it’s not really a constitutional issue, just a lack of enabling legislation issue.

    “Most election law experts believe that in-person voter fraud is extremely rare, and that there is no evidence support Trump’s claims that it is widespread, and accounted for his loss of the popular vote in the 2016 election. ”

    Most “election law experts” are Democrats, and the Democratic party opposes basically all ballot security measures, treating ballot security as a form of vote suppression, because if you mildly inconvenience people, some of them might not bother voting.

    I agree there’s a decided lack of evidence as to the scale of the problem, but how could it be otherwise when, as we see in this case, any effort to look for vote fraud is treated by the Democratic party as an existential threat.

    1. Even in cases where Republican partisans have looked for it, they haven’t come up with much.

      Husted was a pretty big noise-maker about fraud for a while.

      So even though you are absolutely sure you are right – because, hey Trump said so and he wouldn’t lie – you are wrong.

      1. Even in cases where Republican partisans have looked for it, they haven’t come up with much.

        You can’t find most voter fraud by “reviews of election data”, so those numbers are meaningless.

        The real question is why we still don’t have strict, uniform voter ID laws. I mean even though Democrats tried to demonstrate disenfranchisement, they haven’t been able to actually demonstrate it.

      2. The chief way to actually identify ballot fraud would be by an audit of absentee ballots: You’d take a list of everybody who voted absentee, and then go around seeing if they’re actually residing where the ballots were delivered, and ask them if they actually received and filled a ballot out.

        Every time I’ve heard of that somebody attempted this, Democrats went to court and got it shut down as “voter intimidation”. As though anybody would bother to “intimidate” voters AFTER an election!

  4. Both Trump and Sessions seem to have found a use for deep-statism today.

  5. IMHO, the California jungle primary comes perilously to, if not actually violating the following part of the Constitution:

    Section 4 – Republican government
    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of
    Government,

    1. Forgot to mention, in addition to limiting the final vote to the two top candidates, it disallows write in votes. No 3rd party choices.

    2. It’s non-judiciable.

    3. Can you explain why you think the California jungle primary violates that guarantee, or comes close?

      1. It bans write in votes. By doing so it deprives voters of the right to vote for whoever they want.

        1. Here’s a lawsuit filed about it in 2014. The court’s website shows no action on it recently. http://www.ballot-access.org/w…..plaint.pdf

  6. Coincidence that this happened a week or so after a court required Kobach et al to disclose their plans and communications to the entire commission (including its Dem members)? I’m thinking not.

    1. No coincidence. Kobach himself is a fraud.

    2. Yeah, I don’t think this had anything to do with the states fighting back, Kobach doesn’t really care about proper evidence and would have been happy to spin whatever numbers he got his hands on.

      I think the real cause of the commission being shut down was the Democrats going through the courts to get their hands on the secret communications. The question is whether they’ll still pursue that, there might be some big scandals hidden there, or killing the commission might have killed the controversy.

      1. It’s utterly amazing.They were withholding commission materials from a member of the commission.

        The whole thing is despicable.

  7. Well, on to suing against background checks for firearms buyers, on the grounds that requiring the presentation of a photo ID disparately interferes with minorities’ and the elderlys’ exercise of their Second Amendment rights.

    Get ready for a tire-smoking change in direction from the Left.

    1. Well that was embarrassing – on to using speculation to preemptively make up hypocrisy that keeps my anger at Dems hot!

      1. You think the Democrats wouldn’t instantly invoke Sarah’s Law?

        1. Even at a most cynical level of analysis, you have Dems caught between their anti-gun constituency and their racial equality constituency. Recently (though only rhetorically), they’ve come down in favor of making sure the Second Amendment applied equally to blacks versus whites.

          Your assumption is not clear to me at all.

          1. Not only is it speculative, it’s irrelevant to the GOP failure at hand.

            Almost as though you’re scrambling for a comforting narrative as your side is pooping on itself.

            1. BTW, if it were me on liberals behaving badly on school speech or the like, I would hope someone would call me out if I started ranting about some GOP voter suppression or the like.

  8. The committee met only twice. I hope all those people who are concerned with government waste will not condemn Trump for wasating our tax dollars on a venture that was wasteful

  9. Apparently, the federal jackboot can stomp states rights into a bloody pulp when voter ID, race, or gerrymandering are concerned, but heaven forbid a federal commission try to determine whether there is actual voter fraud! And Somin is apparently just fine with that, which shows you just what his political leanings are.

    1. It’s not the idea of the commission, it was it’s execution.

      You can’t find most voter fraud by “reviews of election data”, so those numbers are meaningless.

      And contradictory stuff like you wanting a commission that you earlier argue won’t find anything. That is not a sign of objective truth seeking.

      1. I’ll agree that the execution of the commission left a great deal to be desired. But Democrats I’m aware of objected to the idea of it, or at least demanded that they get to control it.

        1. States have had commissions and they haven’t found anything. So I can see how Dems look with suspicion at the idea of a federal commission to go over that same ground.
          Especially given that the GOP base already yells Fraud!!! at every vote that goes against them without evidence.

          1. States have had commissions and they haven’t found anything.

            States are highly motivated not to find anything because the people in power in each state were put into power through their own voting system. That’s true for both red and blue states.

            So I can see how Dems look with suspicion at the idea of a federal commission to go over that same ground.

            A federal commission has access to resources and data that states don’t have. Furthermore, unlike state commissions, a federal commission is also more motivated to identify and expose fraud.

            1. BS. Jon Husted in Ohio, to take one example, was a big hell-raiser on this. He investigated and found nothing.

              Go back to yelling about Benghazi or Vince Foster or something.

            2. This particular commission was certainly highly motivated to find fraud, whether there was any or not. And what is this data they have access to? They were asking the states for data.

        2. Yes. Democrats objected, and rightly so. There have been investigations. Nobody has found anything. Kobach has made all sorts of claims without a shred of evidence as has, by the way, Trump.

          Yet the GOP refuses to stop the farce and the lies. No racism there.

      2. And contradictory stuff like you wanting a commission that you earlier argue won’t find anything.

        There is no contradiction. The commission got into trouble precisely because they requested more information than was needed for merely “reviewing election data”. That is, presumably, they wanted to check up on individual, identifiable voters in real life.

        1. Yes, specifically, among the types of voting fraud they were looking for, was people voting in more than one state in the same election.

          Would you care to suggest how anyone would detect that particular form of fraud, without enough information to check up on individual, identifiable voters?

          What sort of information were you willing to let them have? Vote totals?

  10. DNC heads on film talking about bussing in voters. Then resigning when it goes public. No evidence?

  11. Jangan konyol. Pemilu California di seluruh negara bagian itu * DITUTUPKAN * dengan kecurangan terhadap GOP, karena ada lebih banyak Demokrat yang pemilih Republik. Sangat tidak adil.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.