I thought this was an interesting piece. AP Commission's Lack of Transparency Apparently Trump has his own witch hunt operating in "stealth mode".
I think it is telling that a supposedly conservative committee tried to obtain so much "State Maintained" personal information about their citizens. It seems that these supposed "small government conservatives" are actually "Big Brother / Fed Loving" folks at heart. Thankfully even Conservative States have the back bone to turn down this request from the people running the President's personal witch hunt. (see below) BI States Refusing to Share Data
I think it is telling that a supposedly conservative committee tried to obtain so much "State Maintained" personal information about their citizens. It seems that these supposed "small government conservatives" are actually "Big Brother / Fed Loving" folks at heart. Thankfully even Conservative States have the back bone to turn down this request from the people running the President's personal witch hunt. (see below) BI States Refusing to Share Data
"Arkansas says it's received the letter and will provide publicly available information but not Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers or information about felony convictions or military status.
Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson says he recommended the secretary of state not release all the information, calling the panel's request too broad."I sure hope us tax payers are not paying too much for this impossible attempt to prove our inaccurate Presidents wild speculation.
38 comments:
Would sensible person provide their Social Security number to the head of Trump University? I don't think anyone in America trusts Donald Trump in that way.
--Hiram
There is a simple way to prove the claim that it is wild speculation-- provide the commission with the data they seek. Just saying "there is no evidence of voter fraud" is a lie so long as the evidence that would prove it, one way or the other, is withheld. And we already know it is possible.
Voter information is a matter of public record. Trump could get this information and check it out if he wants to.
--Hiram
Lots of people and not just Democrats, are very suspicious of any interaction with government. So people like me who are advocates of voter rights are favorably disposed to measures which ensure voter security. We believe that the voter information should be protected. Bear in mind that voter information does not belong to the states or state officials; they hold it in trust for the people who gave them that information.
One problem here is that there is no basis for reasonable suspicion. For example, many Republicans believe voters should be required to produce ID at the polling place. What that does is address the problem of impostor voting. But if impostor voting were a problem, there would be reports of people at the polls unable to vote because they had already been marked as voting by an impostor. But in a country of 300 million people there are hardly any reports of problems of this kind.
--Hiram
Jerry,
When I propose a national ID and database that can be used to track voter registration, welfare qualification, felony history, psychological history and so many other logical and effective things, you are the first to raise concerns about:
- Federal over reach / Big Brother
- States should be trusted (ie local = better)
And yet here you promoting that the States are doing a poor job, that States can not be trusted and that the Feds should be given all this personal data.
It is quite the change... :-)
Jerry,
If it was an Obama commission requesting all this personal data... What would you be saying?
Just saying "there is no evidence of voter fraud" is a lie so long as the evidence that would prove it, one way or the other, is withheld. And we already know it is possible.
This is the government's information. This information belongs to citizens who have entrusted the government with it. The government shouldn't turn it over, at the very least, unless it has a reasonable basis for doing that.
If there was voter fraud, there certainly would be a lot of reasonable suspicion floating around. Even in highly one sided districts, elections are run by members of both parties. In Minnesota there must be thousands of such election judges. How many, exactly have come forward with stories of something fishy going on? Fishiness would be enough to justify an inquiry, but is any really there?
--Hiram
Republicans often talk about the Democratic Party's long, racist, history. They are not wrong in saying we did have such a history. Strom Thurmond was a Democrat for a very long time. One of the things we learned back then was how to suppress the vote. Here is how we did it. We didn't do it directly so much as we erected barriers to voting. We imposed literacy tests. We made polling places difficult and perilous to reach. Aware that the voters we were trying to discourage were suspicious of government, we found ways to ensure that the voters we wanted to discourage would have to entangle themselves with the government they mistrusted in order to vote. They play book for voter suppression goes back to the beginning of voting and the tactics it provides are both tested and effective. They work just as well today ad in the bad old days when my own party used them to pursue a racist agenda.
--Hiram
"Even in highly one sided districts, elections are run by members of both parties. In Minnesota there must be thousands of such election judges. How many, exactly have come forward with stories of something fishy going on? Fishiness would be enough to justify an inquiry, but is any really there?" -- Hiram
In MN, elections are /supposed/ to be run by members of both parties, but only in the last few years have Republicans made an effort, and in one year that I remember, actually recruited enough volunteers to staff all 4000 precincts in the State. In many precincts, though, only Democrats volunteer, and they are simply asked, "Will you be the Republican today?" The effort was made because our poll challengers reported MANY cases of obvious, attempted or possible fraud. A review of voting records, =publicly available=, revealed the possibility of up to 100,000 more. We had 2500 charged cases, with about 1600 convictions for only ONE of the many kinds of voter fraud. State law actually PERMITS illegal voting in at least two ways. And of course, without provisional ballots, thousands of same-day registrants are not verified until long after their votes are already counted. Our highly partisan Secretary of State has refused to purge or properly control the voter rolls, and is in court right now for refusing to release PUBLIC DATA that might reveal voter fraud.
"If it was an Obama commission requesting all this personal data... What would you be saying?"
I would be saying, "where is Barack Obama and what have you done with him?"
And I would be asking YOU the same question, of "why do Democrats refuse to give out PUBLIC DATA to a government commission?"
I can guarantee you would have freaked if Obama had asked for all this information... I can just envision the conspiracy theories you would have accused him of... "Emperor Obama is trying exercise Federal over reach."
Same reason so many people resisted the REAL ID license requirements, and why you resist my proposal to have a national ID / database. Or why you fear the Federal government knowing who has what guns...
You are still missing the point. This information is publicly available. It is held by government. Another wing of the government would like to see what the public and State government already sees, with the probable cause that there is a great amount of criminal activity taking place. I have seen the evidence, and I would like action taken. There will be no complaints from me, and in fact most of the opposition seems to come from Democrats, who I KNOW are at the root of most of this illegal voting. Don't ask me to defend this obstruction; I won't. Why would you?
It is not another wing of State government that wants to see that info...
It is the FEDS... The FEDS are trying to use your personal data for their personal agenda....
Something Jerry would normally fight against.
You are sounding like Trump...
"great amount of criminal activity taking place. I have seen the evidence,"
Now how about you share that evidence...
I will share the evidence, mostly anecdotal.
-- a review of voting records [available to the public!] shows that over 100,000 people with the same name voted more than once in a previous election. Many of those are simply people with the same name. Some number of them are not.
-- Some 2500 felons voted in a recent election.
-- I have seen busloads of "voters" turn away when they caught sight of a Republican poll challenger.
-- One of our election judges reported that 15 people were "vouched for" as living at the same address, which turned out to be the town laundromat where there are no apartments. They were turned away, but the attempt was made.
-- State election law ALLOWS college students to vote twice-- once by absentee and once by same-day registration. No doubt some of those 100,000 double votes are LEGAL double voting. The SOS does not check this and there is no mechanism, apparently, to do so.
-- State election law ALLOWS non-citizens to vote, by accepting out-of-state drivers license from states that give licenses to illegals, like California. The SOS does not train judges to check MN licenses for the non-citizen designation.
-- Same-day registrants are sent a confirmation after the election (and long after the ballots are counted) and some 23,000 of them were returned by the Post Office-- no such person or address.
-- Our SOS is being sued for not properly maintaining the voting rolls (purging dead voters, for example).
And if giving a federal government commission something that the public and the State already have is objectionable to conservatives, why are mostly Democrats refusing to cooperate? If there is no fraud, why object to finding positive proof of that assertion? And Why does George Soros pour millions into his "Secretary of State project" to elect Democrats to SOS positions? You want evidence? There it is.
Given that you provide no sources. I think most readers will doubt the reliability of your examples.
As for who is sharing what. It seems quite a mixed bag, and even the "Comply" states are mostly not giving all of the requested information.
And of course Liberal states are resisting Trump's witch hunt. Just as conservative states resisted Obama's efforts.
What sources? This is my personal experience! Of course you can deny the reality I see, or even deny my existence. It does not increase the strength of your argument one bit, because you cannot assume that the absence of proof is proof of absence. Why not let the review proceed, and prove what you now simply (for no apparent reason) assume?
I am fine having it continue.
and
I am fine with States resisting Fed over reach.
But it cannot continue while States resist, n'cest pas? And most of the States are not resisting "overreach," they are resisting "Trump witch hunt." It's not principled, it's purely politics. It is a determined effort to continue to allow election fraud.
I think you need to read that BI link more closely.
In many states it was illegal to provide all of the "over reach" request data. Even the Conservative ones.
A cursory review of BI link says the "Deny" states-- 9 of 13-- are Democratic controlled. In only a couple of the Republican Deny states, State law was cited as the reason. I am surprised the commission is not proceeding with the 35 states that have or will comply. I would bet that huge numbers of violations will be found in this incomplete sample, though the problems are undoubtedly higher in the states that refuse (like MN).
Two things stand out about the Deny states in general. First, the reason for denial tends to be clearly political and anti-Trump. If it was Obama's commission you would hear not a peep from them. The second is the rampant denial that any sort of voter fraud exists, with absolutely no evidence! I think it is incumbent on those who insist on believing such unfounded assertions to specify how the proof of their belief might be divined without this data. Instead they seem determined to prevent any investigation that might ascertain a truth opposite their almost religious belief.
I think our Conservative friends in Wisconsin are pretty typical in their resistance
"Wisconsin. Comply. Administrator Mike Haas issued a statement saying most of the information in the state's voter registration system is public, including voters' names, addresses and voting history. The state doesn't collect any data about a voter's political preference or gender, he said.
The data is available for purchase and must be release to buyers, Haas said, adding that the commission routinely sells the information to political parties, candidates and researchers. The commission would charge the presidential panel $12,500 for the data, the maximum amount allowed under agency rules, he said.
State law doesn't contain any provisions for waiving the fee, he said. Wisconsin law allows the commission to share voter birthdates, driver's license numbers and Social Security numbers only with police and other state agencies, and the presidential commission doesn't appear to qualify, he said."
What a crazy witch hunt... Why would they ever need gender, voting preference, etc?
And it seems to me based on the summaries that very few states are going to give up "voter birthdates, driver's license numbers and Social Security numbers"...
States can only release the information they have, at most. I understand that, without positive assurances, most responsible governments would not want to add to the opportunity for identity theft. On the other hand, I suspect forwarding only part of the data would be more difficult than all of it, including if available the gender, etc. of the "voter." These are identifying characteristics that might add to the suspicion, or eliminate the suspicion, that the same person voted in two states. Or twice in one state, as Minnesota law permits.
Notice that the request was for "some digits" of the SS number.
It is a "crazy witch hunt" only if you simply want to believe the fantasy that our voting system cannot be "bent" to affect the outcome of an election. I've got personal experience that shatters any such blind faith. Wouldn't it be nice to KNOW that only legitimate votes were being cast, to the maximum degree possible? Or do you prefer to close your eyes and say, over and over, "there are no witches, there are no witches"?
The reality is that the States are responsible for their voting systems, not the Feds.
Whether they are Conservative states who try to make it hard for poor people to vote or Liberal States who make it easy for everyone to vote.
Over all I am fine with the current state of chaos.
I'm very happy for you. And if Republicans and Democrats were equally guilty of election shenanigans, I would figure they balanced out and we could settle for a system that allowed "cheating." But that isn't the case. I just find it outrageous that my vote can be "stolen" by 100 votes cast on the other side by a single individual. Or by 100 fictitious or ineligible individuals. I cannot understand why you are OK with that.
Sure, states are responsible, but what if they are irresponsible? Didn't some states actively work to keep black people from voting? Should the Feds have kept their nose out of it? Or should they have intruded so severely that white people were completely disenfranchised, as happened to me? What about the many cases where people vote in two different states? Are the states going to discover that without a federal "clearing house"?
The people had proof that they could bring to the Federal courts.
You by all studies conducted to date have pretty much squat...
And since states are what really matter in the USA. all that really matters with regard to your vote is what is happening in MN. So good luck proving the fraud here that you accuse them of.
I am sure that there are errors that occur on both sides, however I am pretty sure it rarely if ever sways the result.
There you go again, completely disregarding my first-hand and second-hand experience as an election judge and election judge recruiter. And we know of at least 1600 voter fraud =convictions= in MN, we have suspicions of 23,000 more, and the possibility of 100,000 or more. I know for a fact that Al Franken is not the legitimate winner of his Senate election. I personally saw at least 100 fraudulent votes in the recount, which as you recall he "won" by 300 votes. Not to mention the illegal votes "ignored"-- which are without number-- because the Secretary of State and/or MN law permits them. Where is the proof that fraud or "improper voting" doesn't happen? It's probably in those records someplace (or more likely it is NOT and Democrats don't want that revealed). I don't care who looks at them to root it out; just that it gets done and right now there's only one group trying. Why are you so adamant that this information remains hidden?
If the law permits them... They are legal votes...
I think you should go to the news with your facts and data...
"I know for a fact that Al Franken is not the legitimate winner of his Senate election. I personally saw at least 100 fraudulent votes in the recount, which as you recall he "won" by 300 votes. Not to mention the illegal votes "ignored"-- which are without number-- because the Secretary of State and/or MN law permits them."
It would make great headlines.
Just because it is legal doesn't make it right. Is it fair for some people to vote twice, while you and I only get to vote once? That is legal, and written into the law. Is it legal for illegal immigrants to vote? That is accepted as legal in Minnesota.
As for going to the news, do you really think this sort of anti-Democrat information will ever see the light of day? It never has before.
Go to FOX News or Rush then...
The folks that listen to Rush or watch Fox news already know that Trump is right. But obviously we don't have enough votes to remove that DFL Secretary of State or force changes to election law to "tighten up" the process.
How about answering the basic question: Is it right for some people to vote twice, or to cast a vote to which they are not entitled? Why would you want that situation to continue?
Because me and the majority of Minnesotans trust our State Judges who disagreed with your opinion.
Fools. Or at least fooled.
So here you have this empty cookie jar. Next to it is a kid with cookie crumbs all over his face and hands, and he tells you he didn't do it. You trust him, of course, and deny any possibility contrary to the obvious.
The latest from Heritage:
"Many of the states refusing to cooperate with President Donald Trump’s election commission aren’t in compliance with federal law on maintaining voter registration lists, according to government watchdog groups.
So far, 18 states and the District of Columbia have declined or are still considering whether to provide election data to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, established in May to examine and prevent voter fraud, among other concerns.
The commission requested voter registration data from every state and the District and 14 states include counties where registered voters outnumbered eligible voters based on Census Bureau data, according to findings from Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group."
Makes sense to me since people move, die, etc. And I am sure no one tells the State... It seems like a good reason to have that National ID with metadata.
Sure, but what is actually happening here is that the States are simply ignoring the law and not doing what they COULD do by referring to Social Security Death records and Post Office change of address lists. The only debate is whether this is criminality or just incompetence. Remember whenever the Clintons were accused of wrongdoing and those were the choices, they professed incompetence every time?
My guess is that they would claim shortage of personnel / budget and complexity of task.
Well, 36 states do it, and many of the others DID do it until George Soros' "secretary of state project" got fully funded. The computer algorithms are well established and do not go "obsolete" one year to the next. It is the LAW that these updates get done, and some states do not do them. That should tell you that the "witch hunt" is finding real witches already.
Post a Comment