# Election Assistance Commission gags co-author of "Voter Fraud" report from speaking **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 28, 2007, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-assistance-commission-gags-co-author-of-voter-fraud-report-from-speaking/401969 "2007-04-28T18:25:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2007, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-assistance-commission-gags-co-author-of-voter-fraud-report-from-speaking/401969/1 "2007-04-28T18:25:25Z")
Earlier this month, the [_New York Times_](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/washington/11voters.html?ex=1334030400&en=cba2ba0f1aeb218f&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink) broke the story that the Election Assistance Commission’s December 2006 [on a study of voter fraud and voter intimidation had been altered by the EAC prior to publication, without the authors’ consent, to state that the pervasiveness of “voter fraud” (i.e., individual persons voting illegally) is “open to debate,” when in fact the study found very little evidence of voter fraud around the nation. Now the EAC has issued a gag order (where did they get the authority?!) barring the study’s co-author, Tova Andrea Wang, from discussing it publicly. Wang is fighting back. See [url=[http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4464](http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4464)]here](]report[/url) and [here.](http://electionlawblog.org/archives/008338.html) See [here](http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/EAC_VoterFraud_DraftReport.pdf) (pdf file) for the original draft of the study report. Issues for debate: 1. Legally, can Wang overcome the gag order? 2. Has she already violated it, by posting a pdf file of the original draft? What consequences might she suffer? 3. Why (and on what authority) was the gag order imposed in the first place? 4. Why was the report altered in the first place? 5. Is the EAC (created by the Help America Vote Act of 2002) supposed to be politically independent of the Administration, or not? Who gets to appoint its chair and commissioners, anyway? The [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Assistance_Commission) article doesn’t say. Neither does the [EAC website,](http://www.eac.gov/) so far as I can find. 6. Isn’t it kewl when we can use the word “Wang” in a serious political debate? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2007, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-assistance-commission-gags-co-author-of-voter-fraud-report-from-speaking/401969/2 "2007-04-28T18:32:29Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] 5. Is the EAC (created by the Help America Vote Act of 2002) supposed to be politically independent of the Administration, or not? Who gets to appoint its chair and commissioners, anyway? The [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Assistance_Commission) article doesn’t say. Neither does the [EAC website,](http://www.eac.gov/) so far as I can find. [/QUOTE] From the Help America Vote Act: > [@](#): > > SEC. 203. \<\\> MEMBERSHIP AND APPOINTMENT. > > 1. Membership.– > 1. In \<\\> general.–The Commission shall have four members appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. > 2. Recommendations.–Before the initial appointment of the members of the Commission and before the appointment of any individual to fill a vacancy on the Commission, the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Minority Leader of the Senate, and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives shall each submit to the President a candidate recommendation with respect to each vacancy on the Commission affiliated with the political party of the Member of Congress involved. > 3. Qualifications.–Each member of the Commission shall have experience with or expertise in election administration or the study of elections. > 4. Date of \<\\> appointment.–The appointments of the members of the Commission shall be made not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. So basically appointed by the president and then confimed by the senate. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2007, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-assistance-commission-gags-co-author-of-voter-fraud-report-from-speaking/401969/3 "2007-04-28T18:41:23Z")
[QUOTE=Malodorous] So basically appointed by the president and then confimed by the senate. [/QUOTE] People who wander around after the fact of an election trying to figure out whether it was done properly (and then being muzzled if their conclusions are not politically correct) need Seante confirmation, but Federal District Attorney’s do not. When they say 9/11 changed everything, they aren’t kidding. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2007, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-assistance-commission-gags-co-author-of-voter-fraud-report-from-speaking/401969/4 "2007-04-28T18:45:36Z")
Thanks to friend **Brain** for starting this thread, which I was intending to, but am too lazy and easily…ooh! shiny! Yoiu want a vast right wing conspiracy? What better than to trump up a smoke screen and boogeyman like “voter fraud”? What a slick piece of machinery it is, how deniable, how neatly it avoids tell-tale fingerprints. After all, who can be opposed to rooting out “voter fraud”? The purpose of the excercise is to justify restrictions at the polling place. To make it more difficult to vote, to erect barriers, hoops to jump through. The breakdown is nakedly and brazenly political: the more people vote, the more the right loses. They’ve already maxed out on energizing their base, there is no more juice to be squeezed. What they need to do is minimize voting amongst targeted groups. I don’t have to tell you who they are, you already know who they are. Hence, the desperate need to cleanse voter rolls of criminal felons who seek to undermine our nation by voting! Better to err on the side of caution, better to refuse voting to the innocent than to permit voting for the guilty. If you are falsely denied the right to vote because your name is similar to a criminals name, why, all you have to do is come down to the polling place with three forms of picture ID, character references, and an affidavit from God Almighty. And, of course, get back in the line you’ve already spent four hours in. And if also permits a “loyal Bushie”" US Attorney to bring a bogus case against the Dems in a swing state at a crucial moment, icing on the cake! I say it baldly, because I believe it: the “voter fraud” prevention program in Florida elected George W. Bush, may God have mercy on us all. And I’m hopping mad about it! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2007, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-assistance-commission-gags-co-author-of-voter-fraud-report-from-speaking/401969/5 "2007-04-28T18:51:36Z")
More on [“voter fraud”:](http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3135/the_fraudulence_of_voter_fraud/) > [@](#): > > Understanding that one way to win closely contested elections is to keep Democratic voters away from the polls, the Republican Party has tried to stoke public fears of voter fraud. On Feb. 15, 2005, the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee issued a report, “Putting an End to Voter Fraud,” which said, “Voter fraud continues to plague our nation’s federal elections, diluting and canceling out the lawful votes of the vast majority of Americans.” To remedy the situation, the Senate Republicans advised Congress to “require that voters at the polls show photo identification.” > > But voting experts maintain that voter fraud is not a national problem. In March, Lorraine C. Minnite, a professor of political science at Columbia University, released “The Politics of Voter Fraud,” a report she prepared for Project Vote, an advocacy group based in Arkansas. She writes: > > > [@](#): > > > > The claim that voter fraud threatens the integrity of American elections is itself a fraud. It is being used to persuade the public that deceitful and criminal voters are manipulating the electoral system. … The exaggerated fear of voter fraud has a long history of scuttling efforts to make voting easier and more inclusive, especially for marginalized groups in American society. With renewed partisan vigor, fantasies of fraud are being spun again to undo some of the progress America has made lowering barriers to vote. > > This is borne out by a study from the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, which found that in the 2004 election, voters in states that required documentation of identity were 2.7 percent less likely to vote than voters in states where documentation was not required. Specifically, the study, commissioned by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, found that Latinos were 10 percent less likely to vote, Asian-Americans 8.5 percent less likely to vote and blacks 5.7 percent less likely to vote. > > What’s more, despite GOP claims to the contrary, voter fraud is a very rare occurrence. In 2002 the Justice Department established the Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative to ferret out fraudulent voters. On Oct. 4, 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, with great fanfare, proclaimed, “We’ve made enforcement of election fraud and corrupting offenses a top priority.” Yet according to an April 12 New York Times article, only 120 people have been charged with the crime over the past five years, leading to 86 convictions. Furthermore, the Times noted, federal attorneys say that most of the transgressions have been mistakes by immigrants and felons who simply misunderstood eligibility requirements. I recall running a couple of GD threads on “voter fraud” in the past – I’d link to them but the search function appears to have disappeared, for the moment. As I recall, however, no Doper was able to provide a single credible cite showing “voter fraud” is a real problem. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2007, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-assistance-commission-gags-co-author-of-voter-fraud-report-from-speaking/401969/6 "2007-04-28T19:10:22Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] I recall running a couple of GD threads on “voter fraud” in the past – I’d link to them but the search function appears to have disappeared, for the moment. As I recall, however, no Doper was able to provide a single credible cite showing “voter fraud” is a real problem. [/QUOTE] Search is back up – see [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=389716) thread. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2007, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-assistance-commission-gags-co-author-of-voter-fraud-report-from-speaking/401969/7 "2007-04-29T23:09:13Z")
Two comments: 1. I’ve pretty much lost interest in trying to sway the crowd here, or even trying to correct the record. The people that are genuinely interested in legitimate and honest debate are fewer; the assholes are in ascendancy. 2. However, for a moment of quixotic adventure: (a) > [@](#): > > Yet according to an April 12 New York Times article, only 120 people have been charged with the crime over the past five years, leading to 86 convictions. Furthermore, the Times noted, federal attorneys say that most of the transgressions have been mistakes by immigrants and felons who simply misunderstood eligibility requirements. Cleverly written. But since this is not a strict liability crime, any honest “mistakes” by immigrants and felons are, by definition, not crimes, and shouldn’t ever have been charged. The sentence invites us to conflate the honets mistakes and the criminal actions, by saying that 120 people have been charged with the crime. The honest mistakes shoul be pursued to prevent them from voting, to be sure, because those confused immigrants and felons, however many there may be, should not vote – but if they were honest confused, neither should they be charged with a crime. In short, the fact that only 120 people have been criminally charged is _utterly irrevelant_ in determining how many attempts to vote have been made by confused immigrants and confused felons. (b) > [@](#): > > This is borne out by a study from the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, which found that in the 2004 election, voters in states that required documentation of identity were 2.7 percent less likely to vote than voters in states where documentation was not required. Don’t care. It’s absolutely appropriate to require documentation of identity before voting. Ifthat loses 2.7%, then we need to work on fixing whtever underlying fears or problems cause that. In short: not giving much of a fuck here. Documenation of identity is perfectly valid for voting. That 2.7% can suck it up. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2007, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-assistance-commission-gags-co-author-of-voter-fraud-report-from-speaking/401969/8 "2007-04-29T23:19:40Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] The people that are genuinely interested in legitimate and honest debate are fewer; the assholes are in ascendancy. [/quote] Getting the well-poisoning out of the way up front for a change, are we? > [@](#): > > But since this is not a strict liability crime, any honest “mistakes” by immigrants and felons are, by definition, not crimes, and shouldn’t ever have been charged. And that is exactly the point. Welcome to the Ascendant Assholes Association. They should indeed not have been charged. Yet _they were anyway_. How come, d’ya s’pose? > [@](#): > > In short, the fact that only 120 people have been criminally charged is _utterly irrevelant_ in determining how many attempts to vote have been made by confused immigrants and confused felons. You are utterly ignoring the context - that the Feds were \*looking \* for people to charge, to prove that this massive voter fraud problem they wanted to exist did exist. > [@](#): > > It’s absolutely appropriate to require documentation of identity before voting. Ifthat loses 2.7%, then we need to work on fixing whtever underlying fears or problems cause that. There too, that is exactly the point. The “underlying problems” include such things as Georgia’ requirement, recently imposed by a GOP legislature, to have a driver’s license or state ID card, oh, and there’s a fee involved. Look up “poll tax” for some of the history of that problem - you’ll find the word “unconstitutional” there too. But, if you don’t want to give a fuck, nobody can make you. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2007, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-assistance-commission-gags-co-author-of-voter-fraud-report-from-speaking/401969/9 "2007-04-29T23:41:21Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Two comments: 1. I’ve pretty much lost interest in trying to sway the crowd here, or even trying to correct the record. The people that are genuinely interested in legitimate and honest debate are fewer; the assholes are in ascendancy. 2. However, for a moment of quixotic adventure:… [/quote] Brave, brave, brave Sir Bricker… > [@](#): > > The sentence invites us to conflate the honets mistakes and the criminal actions, by saying that 120 people have been charged with the crime… confused felons. . Wherein the point is evaded as gracefully as a _matador_ avoids the horns in a perfect _veronica_. What we are invited to appreciate is that 120 arrests, charges, tickets, _whatsoever_… is a piddling matter. Certainly, it isn’t worthy of bringing the vast, clanking machinery of the _Federales_ to bear. Hence, we are invited to contemplate why it is done, whose interests are served in inflating a Japanese condom into a dirigible. Do you think I’m wrong in presuming that the greater portion of that 2.7 is poor, perhaps homeless? And that population is predominantly Democratic? Thus, this sort of thing favors one party over another. Is it not clear whose interests are served here? Is it not clear who would gain by presenting a pious concern for “voter fraud” as a screen for making it more difficult for the lower classes to exercise their inconvenient civic rights? Look around the country, look at grass roots movements to make voter registration easier and more convenient. Who opposes such movements? Who benefits if polling places in the inner city take hours to process the voter? Who benefits when they don’t vote? (Hint: starts with an “R”) The clear possibility exists, and demands clarification, that this whole “voter fraud” hooha is nothing more than a partisan political maneuver, with intent to thwart voters likely to favor a political party. I would never suggest that a person making $100,000 a year or more should not be permitted to vote, that is anathema to democratic egalitarians like you and I. But I further assert that the ease and convenience of voting for a upper class person should be precisely the same as a fellow citizen less advantaged. I would insist on it. I would expect you to join me. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2007, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-assistance-commission-gags-co-author-of-voter-fraud-report-from-speaking/401969/10 "2007-04-29T23:59:40Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Do you think I’m wrong in presuming that the greater portion of that 2.7 is poor, perhaps homeless? And that population is predominantly Democratic? Thus, this sort of thing favors one party over another. [/quote] Yes, it does. And forbidding felons the vote also favors one party over another for some of the same reasons. What of it? It’s a very legitimate thing to do, regardless. There seem to me to be two possibilities: I support these measures only because they benefit the GOP, or… …I support these measures because they are consistent with my general philosophy of governance, and that because I generally hold opinions along these lines in all areas I usually support the GOP. I’d say the second is true. I can’t imagine that I’d be in favor of unfettered, never verified voting no matter which party it served. By the same token, I favor accountability in voting like paper-backups, which (according to some) will hurt the Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2007, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-assistance-commission-gags-co-author-of-voter-fraud-report-from-speaking/401969/11 "2007-04-30T00:11:51Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] In short, the fact that only 120 people have been criminally charged is _utterly irrevelant_ in determining how many attempts to vote have been made by confused immigrants and confused felons. [/QUOTE] That’s as much as to say there’s no correlation at all between arrest statistics and crime statistics. Do you really believe that? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2007, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-assistance-commission-gags-co-author-of-voter-fraud-report-from-speaking/401969/12 "2007-04-30T00:16:15Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Yes, it does…which (according to some) will hurt the Republicans. [/QUOTE] That a man of sterling character such as yourself is above such partisan treachery does not mean _they_ are. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2007, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-assistance-commission-gags-co-author-of-voter-fraud-report-from-speaking/401969/13 "2007-04-30T02:56:35Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] That’s as much as to say there’s no correlation at all between arrest statistics and crime statistics. [/quote] No. > [@](#): > > Do you really believe that? No. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2007, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-assistance-commission-gags-co-author-of-voter-fraud-report-from-speaking/401969/14 "2007-04-30T03:03:10Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] That a man of sterling character such as yourself is above such partisan treachery does not mean _they_ are. [/QUOTE] True enough. But my point is that regardless of their motives, we should examine the proposal on its merits. For example, suppose I were to show that Joe favors abortion rights because he knows that minority women avail themselves of abortions more often, and he wishes to stem the expansion of minority numbers. We would both agree that this is a reprehensible motive. And we would both agree that the issue of abortion policy should not be decided based on the reprehensible motives held by some of its proponents, any more than it should be decided based on the benign motives held by other of its proponents. Instead, it should be decided on the merits. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2007, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-assistance-commission-gags-co-author-of-voter-fraud-report-from-speaking/401969/15 "2007-04-30T16:29:34Z")
Getting back on track, **Bricker,** what is your opinion (legal and otherwise) on issues 1 to 4 in the OP? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2007, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-assistance-commission-gags-co-author-of-voter-fraud-report-from-speaking/401969/16 "2007-04-30T21:09:45Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] True enough. But my point is that regardless of their motives, we should examine the proposal on its merits… [/QUOTE] Yes but no. There is the question of merit, of course, persons who fraudulently gain the voting booth should be discouraged. But, really, how big an issue is this? Certainly not important enough to compel USA’s to ferocious zeal, not important enough to justify the time and expense expended for such results. Predictably puny results, more to the point. It would appear, then, that the merits of the issue are important only to the pure of heart, like you and I. The central thrust is to ensure that certain segments of the electorate are discouraged, a concept repulsive to us both. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-assistance-commission-gags-co-author-of-voter-fraud-report-from-speaking/401969/17 "2007-05-01T01:16:53Z")
Never mind. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-assistance-commission-gags-co-author-of-voter-fraud-report-from-speaking/401969/18 "2007-05-01T01:19:52Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] 1. Legally, can Wang overcome the gag order? [/QUOTE] While the blogs call it a “gag order” I’ve not been able to locate any “order.” I did find a few responses to her request to be “released.” [http://www.eac.gov/docs/Rodriguez%20Statement%20Regarding%20Tova%20Wang%20Request%20(%204-26-07%20).pdf](http://www.eac.gov/docs/Rodriguez%20Statement%20Regarding%20Tova%20Wang%20Request%20(%204-26-07%20).pdf) This leads me to believe that she, like many other government contractors and employees, has a confidentiality agreement with the federal government. Such agreements were upheld in _Snepp v. United States_, 444 U.S. 507 (1980): [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=444&invol=507](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=444&invol=507) ; _and see_, [http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20001115.html](http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20001115.html) The Snepp case is different, of course; it involved an ex-CIA agent who was in a position of trust and had access to classified information. Nevertheless, confidentiality agreements seem to make first amendment analysis a bit easier for the courts in cases like these. > [@](#): > > 1. Has she already violated it, by posting a pdf file of the original draft? Probably. [http://www.eac.gov/docs/Rodriguez%20Statement%20Regarding%20Tova%20Wang%20Request%20(%204-26-07%20).pdf](http://www.eac.gov/docs/Rodriguez%20Statement%20Regarding%20Tova%20Wang%20Request%20(%204-26-07%20).pdf) ; [http://www.eac.gov/docs/04-16-07%20STATEMENT\_BY\_COMMISSIONER\_GRACIA\_HILLMAN.pdf](http://www.eac.gov/docs/04-16-07%20STATEMENT_BY_COMMISSIONER_GRACIA_HILLMAN.pdf) (part of her request was to release the report, which suggests she couldn’t do it without permission, which she didn’t get.) What consequences might she suffer? It’s not clear to me. I suppose the EAC could seek an injunction to prevent further disclosures. > [@](#): > > 1. Why (and on what authority) was the gag order imposed in the first place? See answer to Number 1. > [@](#): > > 1. Why was the report altered in the first place? From Hillman’s statement: > [@](#): > > EAC asked the consultants to “develop a comprehensive description of what constitutes voting fraud and voter intimidation,” to “perform background research,” to “identify a working group. . . with the objective of identifying. . . future research by EAC,” and to create a report summarizing all of the above. This research was, from the beginning, intended to begin the process of defining, understanding, and making recommendations about the issues of voter fraud and intimidation. The consultants decided to give us additional recommendations about the national significance of the problems of voter fraud and intimidation. The report they gave us, however, did not include research and data to provide underpinnings for those additional recommendations. > > EAC, by law, is made up of 2 Democratic Commissioners and 2 Republican Commissioners. We were confronted with the dilemma of a report that had too little research for the consultants’ recommendations. The consensus we reached was to produce our own report but to include all of the consultants’ background research, summaries of interviews, and summaries of cases reviewed. Basic data from the consultants was made part of the Election Crimes study report we issued in December 2006. [http://www.eac.gov/docs/04-16-07%20STATEMENT\_BY\_COMMISSIONER\_GRACIA\_HILLMAN.pdf](http://www.eac.gov/docs/04-16-07%20STATEMENT_BY_COMMISSIONER_GRACIA_HILLMAN.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-assistance-commission-gags-co-author-of-voter-fraud-report-from-speaking/401969/19 "2007-05-01T03:31:50Z")
Here’s a [profile](http://www.tcf.org/about.asp?pgid=staff&staffid=23) of Wang, BTW. Some might argue her background suggests an ideological bias – but they knew that (or should have) before they hired her. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2007, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-assistance-commission-gags-co-author-of-voter-fraud-report-from-speaking/401969/20 "2007-05-01T17:35:19Z")
And this just in… [http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003107.php](http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003107.php) From _TPM Muckraker_, may the Good Lord bless them and keep them always… **Controversial USA Delivered “Voter Fraud” Indictments Right on Time** > [@](#): > > …But Bradley Schlozman – the former U.S. Attorney for Kansas City and controversial deputy head at the Civil Rights Division – broke with the policy. Not only that, but there’s evidence that he rushed four indictments to land just before last November’s election… You may have heard at some point the grand and cunning conspiracy by the ultra-radical group ACORN to “fraudulently” register voters. The whole story is far too long and too specific to lend itself to excerpt, your correspondent urges you to read the whole thing (not \*that \* long!) Links and documentation are provided within the article, in the standard \*TPM \* style. Fact based refutation is solicited, if you have such. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/election-assistance-commission-gags-co-author-of-voter-fraud-report-from-speaking/401969.md?page=2)