Slashdot Mirror
Privacy Watchdog Sues Trump's Election Committee Over Voter Data (engadget.com)
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."
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... plus it apparently jeopardizes voter privacy and security. So don't try to politicize Trump's grandiosity, malignant narcissism, impulsivity, maniacal insecurity, or hypersensitivity to slights & criticism.
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.
The big problem with Voter ID is that many proposals violate the 24th Amendment against poll taxes. A voter ID would need to be free of any financial charge and also free of other logistical barriers, e.g. "you can only get them at the DMV next to the statehouse on odd Tuesdays between the hours of 10 and 11 AM, and you need to provide an in-state birth certificate, social security card, blood sample, passport, pass a citizenship test and submit to a DNA swab".
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.
Especially with what they are requesting...military status, felony status, per-election voting results. I can see this being used as propaganda: each state has their own rules for felony voting. Some never let a felon vote again, some do after 2x time sentenced, etc. However, it's highly likely that this commission will "freak out" on Fox and Friends screaming about all the "felons voting!", and how that is "illegal", etc. They won't go into how it's illegal only in specific states, or that the states where felons are voting it isn't illegal...nuance like that is not usually fitting for Breibart, Fox, etc. All we will hear is is about "rapist, murderers, and pedophiles voting!" or such. They will probably just match up the last four SSN, take a list of dead people's last 4, and claim that ALL these people are "illegally voting dead people". Then, lawsuits from groups like "Voters Outreach of America" will start rolling in on those states, costing taxpayers millions and exposing even more voter information.
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.
...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 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.
Why are people so resistant to a simple audit I wonder?
Don't know. Why don't you ask the con artist who fought tooth and nail to stop vote recounts in three states by claiming, wait for it, there was no evidence of vote fraud. 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. 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:
"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.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
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.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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.