This just in from Talking Points Memo, without which no citizen can hope to be well-informed…
Sanders: Defying ‘Election Integrity’ Commission Is A ‘Political Stunt’
(emphasis added)
Well, not quite.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/connie-lawson-rejects-election-integrity-commission-request
That would be noted champion of voting rights, Connie Lawson. Mmmm, yes,
And just to show that the world is now beyond parody, you know who else is refusing to provide the full array of requested data? That would be one Kris Kobach, in his state capacity, refusing to provide social security numbers to himself in his federal capacity. Because it’s a stunt, I guess.
I’ve read this article several times, and I’m just trying to confirm here. Kobach is insisting on states providing a bunch of data. Kobach is in charge of that data in his own state and he is refusing to comply with this order. The one that he issued.
I can’t be reading this correctly.
As I understand it, Kobach asked for the last four digits of every voter’s Social Security number. But Kansas law doesn’t allow Kobach himself to provide that information, so he is refusing his own request to that extent for now.
Too bad he didn’t respond like the Mississippi Secretary of State and tell himself to jump in the Gulf of Mexico.
I agree that this is now beyond parody in its ethics-bending sliminess. The remarkable thing is that I don’t see how it even accomplishes anything toward his ego-inflating objective of proving that more people voted for him than against him unless party affiliation or some other piece of information can be used to infer how everyone voted. Which is kind of interesting since every democracy on the planet advanced enough to have mastered indoor plumbing long ago instituted the secret ballot to protect its democracy from abuse. I guess none of that matters in Trumpland.
We can’t entirely rule that out from the git-go. Maybe Il Douche is such a dim bulb that he doesn’t realize that any investigation into his claims is a guaranteed flop, and genuinely expects full vindication.
Other is that he is simply starting something so that something exists, and he can defer comment until it is complete. Bet its likely that he will point at it when he gets asked why he hasn’t done anything at all relative to Russiahack. He can just shrug and say that’s also their job, their mission statement is nothing but flexible.
Couple data points support this. One, he simply waves the budget/funding question away by saying the General Services office will take care of all of that. Did he ask them about that, did he propose a budget? And that part about appropriations, do we take that to mean a budget will be presented to Congress for approval? Your guess as good as mine, except wherein I am smarter.
Also, note: the honchos don’t get paid. Knoblicker and von Spakovsky, amongst others, are apparently expected to keep their day jobs and take care of this little chore on the side.
(Staff, Fearless Leader? Interns, volunteers or conscripted homeless with signs that promise to work for food.)
So, yeah, maybe he is just floating some fart zeppelin, just for shits and giggles.
Anything that unites the states of California, Kentucky, New York and Mississippi should be noted in utter amazement.
I was surprised to learn Oregon is not yet one of the states that has declined to comply with this appalling request. I have already written to both my senators, my representative and of course, my secretary of state. I also sent an email to friends to ask them to join the effort to add Oregon to the list.
Is Eugene burning?
LOL, damn straight. 
The most amusing thing is that shithead-in-chief and his cronies & flacks seem to be completely unaware that there is no process to “unregister” after one moves to a new voting pecinct. Another factoid иностранные to them is that, even without moving to a new residence, one is in different precincts/districts for voting for different political offices. The pocess for registering to vote is just that: registering to vote, not deregistering.
Here’s what they asked Connecticut for…
*… in order for the Commission to fully analyze vulnerabilities and issues related to voter registration and voting, I am requesting that you provide to the Commission the publicly -available voter roll data for Connecticut, including,if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward, active/inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding voter registration in another state, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information. …
*
And CA is one of the first to give them the finger and a big NO.
I’ve since learned that Oregon SoS Dennis Richardson told them they could pony up the $500 to buy the information available, just like anyone else who wanted it, but Oregon would not provide anything beyond that. No social security number information, no driver’s license numbers.
Here’s a handy state-by-state link: At a Glance in WaPo
My favorite (after Kobach’s own office announcing that he can’t release the info to himself) is the Mississippi Sec. of State, (a Republican, naturally) who literally invited the Commission to go jump in the Gulf of Mexico, noting that Mississippi is an excellent place to do that from.
I would have thought after BP, the jellyfish had suffered enough.
A perfectly reasonable response. The Commission can pay for the publicly available data the same as anyone else. And the Commission does not have the privilege to receive any data that is not publicly available.
I know there is an almost visceral urge to resist anything Trump, but that does not give states permission to violate their own open records laws, if applicable. I would hope any state flatly refusing to release any data to the Commission has firm footing for that decision rooted in the law of the individual state. Otherwise we could end up with pointless legal wrangling.
The quote from the Commission to Connecticut appears to not mention anything about paying. If they don’t offer to pay the fee, I can see them being able to just flat out say no. Similarly, if there is a particular process, I could see them saying no unless they use it. And I would guess that there is no obligation to let them know the proper process.
If I am correct, then they likely are on the right side of the law in refusing until the proper request with the proper payment is made.
According to an article in The Nation at the same time they asking for voter information, they are de-funding the agency that is supposed to help keep voting machines from getting hacked. I guess they need all those registrations to reverse the results due to the hacking that is going to occur in the next election.
//i\
Pointless legal wrangling seems like the perfect counter to a pointless* exercise.
*“Pointless” assuming that it’s charter is to find 3 million illegal votes, and not voter suppression.