Conservatives Respond to End of Election Integrity Commission

On Wednesday, President Trump ended the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (PACEI), which had been plagued by lawsuits from liberal organizations and even one of the Commission's own Democratic members.  Liberals are touting their victory in "resisting" an initiative started by President Trump, but conservatives have also responded.

RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen wrote today in The Hill:

Why is this hatred so strong? Besides that it is the liberal election administration community’s way of participating in the Trump “resist” movement, they feared the PACEI because the last two presidential election commissions have recommended corrective measures that go against the liberal agenda. . . . Contrary to the liberal’s narrative, the PACEI disbanding does not prove there is no vote fraud; rather, it proves liberals fear looking into this issue because things such as illegal non-citizen votes favor the Democratic Party in elections. . . . 

In the end, liberals won this battle to prevent any inquiry into fraudulent votes and messy elections, but may lose the war. When the President disbanded the PACEI, he also “asked the Department of Homeland Security to review these issues.” . . . If DHS reviews the issues that the PACEI was tasked with studying, it could use the SAVE database to help states fix their voter registration lists and find non-citizens registered and voting much more efficiently than an advisory commission ever could, as election officials have been clamoring for for years. . . .

So Democrats have “resisted” the bipartisan efforts, in the fine tradition of the last two presidential election commissions, to study and propose solutions to fix our elections. Sadly, the American people are those who lose the most whenever the liberal election world is “successful.” Every illegal vote cancels out the vote of an American citizen, who has lost the right of self-government due to the political agenda of liberal activists. But the left may lose the war, as their victory may hurt their real goals and make it easier to stop non-citizens from registering and voting. 

Former PACEI member Hans von Spakovsky issued the following statement:

While I am disappointed about the dissolution of the Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, I understand President Trump’s action.  The ability of the Commission to research, review, and examine the integrity and security of the American election process was made almost impossible by the unprecedented and unjustified obstruction by many state election officials who defiantly refused to cooperate with the Commission.

The Commission was also hampered by the almost dozen meritless lawsuits that were filed against the Commission by progressive advocacy groups that were solely intended to prevent its work and take up the time of the Commission’s staff with frivolous litigation. 

The American people understand how important it is that we have a secure system in which everyone who is eligible is able to vote and their vote is not diluted or stolen by fraudulent votes or administrative errors and mistakes by election officials.

The obstacles and impediments used to hinder the work of the Commission is evidence that there are many politicians and activists who want to prevent the American people from finding out the truth.

Fellow former PACEI member Christian Adams also issued a statement:

Foes of election integrity lost their seat at the table.  Now the important work of improving the integrity of the election process will be done by people who believe in election integrity, not by those who seek to preserve vulnerabilities in the system. Over the years, demonstrable and empirical data has been developed showing noncitizen voting, double voting, and defects in the election system that no credible observer could deny. Some news outlets and activists have decided to ignore those facts, as if they do not exist.  Unfortunately, there are plenty of well-funded groups, activist academics and individuals who are not credible who sought to undermine and sabotage the Commission’s work.  They may delight today in the dissolution of the Commission, but before long they’ll realize that advocates of election integrity have more stamina, support and perseverance than they realize.

We thank the members of the PACEI for their work and look forward to future efforts to improve the integrity of elections and voters' confidence in election systems and their outcomes. 

Need for Accurate Voter Registration Lists Highlighted at Election Integrity Commission Meeting

Don Palmer, a Fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center, former Secretary of the Virginia Board of Elections, and former Florida Director of Elections, testified before the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity today about problems of errors in voter registration lists, the recommendations of previous bipartisan presidential election commissions, and the need for accurate voter rolls:

A series of national level commissions have pointed out the wide scope of the problem concerning the inaccuracies of the voting rolls, and the negative impact on election administration and voter confidence. They have also pointed out the vulnerability of our system to voter fraud and irregularities that result from the inability to maintain accurate voter rolls.

Each of these commissions identified the problem and provided recommendations, yet here we are again, facing the same issue and still searching for answers and the will to do something about it. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) after the 2000 election required counties to work with new statewide voter registration systems to share data for list maintenance purposes and to maintain an official voter registration list. This reform required the states to interact with individual counties because the increasing mobility of our citizens demanded a system where county election officials could receive eligibility and registration information on individuals when they move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to resolve duplicates. However, the mobility of voters across state lines is almost as significant as within a state, thus requiring the states work together in coordination with each other to resolve the problem. . . .

The voter registration systems in the states desperately need to be upgraded to add capability and made more functionally accurate, secure, and to better facilitate the sharing of registration data between states. Investment in the newest technologies would also allow better matching processes at the state level that improve list maintenance and interact more efficiently with local election officials. Bad matches, false positives, or lack of matching capability is often the result of older systems and software that doesn’t provide the ability to overcome errors in the registration.

Investment in the latest technology will also provide additional security for state and local voter registration systems. While most states already have robust hygiene programs to protect our voter registration systems, new technology would assist in these enhancements.

In addition to these recommendations, Mr. Palmer made a variety of other practical recommendations to the commission that would help states maintain more accurate voter registration lists.  We thank Mr. Palmer, and the other experts who took the time to testify before the commission today, for sharing his expertise and experiential wisdom.

Concerns with Klobuchar-Graham Election Security Amendment

Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have co-sponsored an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act providing for federal funding for state election security measures.  While the security community has embraced this amendment, and we thank Sen. Graham for taking the problem of election security seriously in a way that attempts to respect state power, we have some concerns about this measure:

• It is a serious amendment of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) that should be approached carefully, and the process should include hearing where various stakeholders testify.
• It places enormous new responsibilities on the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an agency which has struggled to fulfill its existing mandate and operate its existing advisory boards, which faces a budget crisis, and which may not have the authority to accomplish what the amendment requires.
• The EAC already accomplishes many of the functions in this amendment, but the amendment adds more bureaucracy and spends more money to do it.  It is an enormous aggregation of federal power.
• It formalizes the role of the Department of Homeland Security and the Executive Branch to set standards, which the states are required to meet to receive federal funding.  Currently, the EAC is the only federal standard-setting standard entity for elections, and it is an independent agency.
• An existing voluntary program to certify voter registration systems appeared to be working well, aside from DHS withholding important security information from the states last fall.  States are agreeing to this new measure because they are already doing these things on a voluntary basis and need the funding, but a voluntary program and a mandatory (at least, from the perspective of funding) program are vastly different in terms of who is controlling the election security standards and systems.
• It excludes states that use direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines.  While there have been some serious problems with DRE machines (and Virginia decertified all DREs in the state last week), DREs are the only machines many localities have and they make voting easier for voters with disabilities.
• It would allow states to implement mandatory voter registration and other progressive reforms with federal funds.

This amendment needs some serious study and input from election administration experts--not just computer, national security, and cybersecurity experts--before it moves forward in the Senate.

Among other burdens placed on the EAC, the amendment requires it and a commission to conduct an investigation of the foreign interference in the 2016 election and the potential for interference in future elections.  An existing commission, the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, is already investigating election security and voting machines as part of its mission to study the U.S. election system and what promotes or decreases voter confidence in the system.  The next meeting of the commission is tomorrow, from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM Eastern.  RNLA will be live-tweeting the meeting.

The RNLA Thanks the EIC for Working to Restore Confidence in our Elections

The Republican National Lawyers Association submitted a comment to the Presidential Advisory Election Integrity Commission (EIC). As we have previously posted and highlighted, the EIC was seeking public comment ahead of it next meeting on Tuesday, September 12th in New Hampshire. 

A brief expert of the RNLA's comment to the EIC:

The United States has the finest election system in the world and enjoys a proud position as the leading, longest lasting representative democracy in the world. Yet, there is always work to be done to improve the election system, and America is currently experiencing a crisis of confidence in its election system. A recent poll showed that a record-low 30% of Americans are confident in the “honesty of elections.”  

 While liberals and establishment Democrats continue to oppose the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (EIC) and its work, the EIC is taking an important step to address this crisis of confidence in our election systems by studying the problem, inviting expert testimony, and encouraging public comments. Indeed, the EIC is engaging in exactly what one of the EIC’s most vocal opponents, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, recently called for: a “public debate about these issues where experts can discuss policies like same-day registration as well as alleged voter fraud.”  By studying and taking seriously the problems and perception of problems in our election system, the EIC has an unparalleled opportunity to improve the public’s confidence in the process and outcomes of elections with the goal of increasing voter turnout, for all eligible voters. The RNLA thanks the EIC and its commissioners for undertaking this important work.

While some citizens will always vote and some citizens will never vote, for many citizens whether they turn out to vote depends on the candidates and issues on the ballot and whether they believe their vote counts and will make a difference. Despite the hyperbolic rhetoric, studies and polls consistently show that election integrity is important to the American people and that greater election integrity will likely lead to greater voter confidence and turnout

The Commission also released a proposed agenda for the meeting, available here. We look forward and encourage a meaningful discussion on the issues that threaten our votes and election integrity, generally, as we work to improve our system moving forward. The RNLA will bring you the highlights from this meeting next week here on our blog, our website, and on Twitter and Facebook.

President’s Election Integrity Commission Seeking Public Comments

The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, as part of its mission to serve the American people, is inviting public comment throughout the period of its work and particularly before the next meeting:

[T]he EIC is seeking to improve the public’s confidence in the process and outcomes of elections with the goal of increasing voter turnout, for all voters. At the next meeting of the EIC on Tuesday, September 12, at 10:00 AM, the EIC will hear testimony on how election integrity impacts voter confidence and voter turnout.  

Despite the hyperbolic rhetoric, studies and polls consistently show that election integrity is important to the American people and that greater election integrity will likely lead to greater voter confidence and turnout:

• An August 2016 Gallup poll found that 80% of Americans, including 77% of minorities and 63% of Democrats, support requiring photo ID prior to voting.
• The Gallup poll found that 68% of Americans view ballots cast by ineligible voters as a problem.
• An August 2017 Rasmussen Reports poll found that 70% of likely voters support requiring photo identification prior to voting.
• Voter ID requirements have been associated with higher turnout (or at a minimum, no effect on turnout):
• In 2016, many states with voter ID laws saw record turnout.
• Wisconsin has seen a steady increase in turnout since the enactment of its voter ID law.
• A 2006 study by John Lott, one of the experts testifying before the EIC on September 12, found that voter turnout in Mexico increased after adoption of a very strict voter ID law.  

Why does election integrity matter? Ineligible votes are what really disenfranchise voters:

1,852 non-citizens who were removed from the voter rolls in the past six years in Virginia had voted, casting 7,474 total illegal ballots. The 2013 attorney general’s race was won by just 907 votes. 

In July, Broward County, Florida, Democrat Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes admitted that noncitizens and ineligible felons do vote in “major elections” despite not being eligible, often as a result of the flood of new voter registrations submitted by activist groups directly before elections.  

What can you do? Submit a public comment on “laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies, and practices that enhance and/or undermine the American people's confidence in the integrity of the voting processes in Federal elections, as well as vulnerabilities in the voting systems and practices used for Federal elections.” Groups and individuals are encouraged to submit comments. Comments pertaining to the September 12 meeting must be submitted by Friday, September 8, at 5:00 PM. Additional information is available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=GSA-GSA-2017-0002-0104.

We invite all RNLA members and friends to submit comments by next Friday.

On Voting, Schumer Apparently Considers Some Democrats Neo-Nazis

In the Daily Caller this week, RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen calls out Senator Schumer and his recent blog post in the Medium which compared the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity to the racist riots in Charlottesville earlier this month. In his blog post, Senator Schumer announced his attempt to block and force the disbandment of the commission. Mr. Thielen explored the rationale for this undertaking by the Democrats:

Simply put, current Democrats and their allies on the left have opposed virtually every major bipartisan election administration reform proposed by their fellow Democrats and liberals in this century. They have opposed such reforms even when political leaders such as former Democrat President Carter have backed them. . . . They oppose election administration reforms because a messy election system helps them beat outsiders within their own party such as Bernie Sanders and those outside the party, such as Republicans and Green Party candidates. . .

For years now in the Democrat stronghold of Philadelphia in the swing state of Pennsylvania, there have been issues with Democrat party operatives intimidating voters in Philadelphia... More recently in 2016, Republican poll officials in Philadelphia were turned away and not allowed to vote or do their jobs because of intimidation. . . . Of course, critics will say Philadelphia votes overwhelmingly Democrat, so why are Republicans complaining? In April of this year in a special election, the Green and Republican Parties joined together to file a federal lawsuit contesting the outcome. Operatives of the Democrat machine in Philadelphia were escorting voters to voting machines, telling voters they could only vote for the Democrat write-in candidate, and not allowing voters to vote for the Green or Republican Party candidates on the ballot. This is the sort of intimidation that should be condemned by all parties, but it is not—because it benefits Democrats. The reason Schumer says this is because he knows such “sloppy lists” benefit Democrats. . .

In July in Florida, the Broward County Supervisor of Elections Democrat Brenda Snipes admitted under oath that problems with sloppy lists and last minute voter registration drives have led to “non-citizens and felons [voting] despite not being eligible — especially right before major elections.”... In other words, Democrat efforts to keep messy voter rolls have resulted in vote fraud and eligible voters being disenfranchised in a key Democrat county in Florida—the ultimate swing state during modern Presidential elections. Yet, none of this is reported or mentioned by many on the left who purport to track voter fraud.

Schumer ended his rant by proposing bipartisan “hearings on the status of voting rights in America.” If Schumer were at all sincere and believed this, he would embrace President Trump’s Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, for this is exactly what it is doing. The commission is seeking public comments prior to its second meeting on September 12, 2017, which will be co-chaired by the nation’s longest serving Secretary of State, Democrat Bill Gardner. Gardner is not just co-chairing the meeting but hosting it in his native New Hampshire. Hard to get much more bipartisan, unless Schumer is concerned the second meeting is too Democrat. . . .

The Democrats, guided under Senator Schumer, continue their offense of obstructing Republicans and their efforts to govern. By doing this, they continue to reject the will of the people and their choices in 2016 Election, including any efforts to investigate problems that occurred in past elections. 

Nevertheless, you can help out! The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity is seeking public comments ahead of their next meeting on September 12th. You can submit your comment here.

Washington Post Says Presidents Obama and Carter are "Voter Suppressors" and Against "Civil Rights"

In an editorial entitled “Voter suppression is the civil rights issue of this era,” The Washington Post tried to liken Republicans and President Trump’s bipartisan Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity as somehow tied to efforts to protect “confederate statues” and anti-civil rights Jim Crow laws.  The obvious problem with this is it was Southern Democrats who put up these statues and enacted the Jim Crow laws.  

The less obvious problem is a living Democrat President and a living Democrat President's Commission not only disagree with the examples they cite as “voter suppression” but support them.  First is President Obama whose Presidential Commission on Election Administration called for voter lists to “come as close as possible to creating an accurate database of all eligible voters.”  The Post considers this effort to remove ineligible names from the voter rolls “purging.”  The Post further calls for "[pushing back hard against" this activity, and therefore the recommendations of President Obama's Commission, and says "this should be a paramount cause for [civil rights in] the Trump era.”  In other words, President Obama's Commission (which was co-chaired by his campaign lawyer and White House Counsel, Bob Bauer) is a vote suppressor and anti-civil rights because of its support for accurate voter rolls. 

Another item The Post demands “[p]ushing back hard against [are] those who . . . demand forms of voter ID that many Americans don’t possess . . . this should be a paramount cause for [civil rights in] the Trump era. “  Well, Jimmy Carter not only accepted a report that called for voter ID, he co-chaired the effort. 

With their support of list maintenance and voter ID, President Obama's Commission and President Carter are, according to The Washington Post’s logic, “vote suppressors” and opposed to civil rights.  This is ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as The Post's attempts to tie reasonable bipartisan efforts to ensure the integrity of the election to statues of Confederate generals.  Shame on The Post.  

Democrats Continue to Attack American's Right to Vote

The left continues to attack the Election Integrity Commission, but Sarah Lee breaks down the flaws of the left's arguments in an article in the Independent Journal Review.  She addresses the surreal fact that liberals are using which is a conservative argument of Federalism for maybe the first time ever.

In a weird turn of events, liberal Democrat leaders have suddenly rediscovered the concept of federalism and have begun to craft the narrative that this request to the states for help study is somehow a predecessor of centralizing policy. It is not. The Commission, as clearly stated in their foundational order, is a study group only tasked only with making suggestions.

She notes how opposition against the Commission is part of a larger problem of liberals obstructing everything:

Ultimately, the pushback from liberals sounds more like obstructionism of the type the Democrats have been engaged in since President Trump was elected, most visibly by attempting to block almost every single one of his judicial appointments, beginning with newest SCOTUS member, Justice Neil Gorsuch.

She concludes by detailing another reason beyond the constant obstructionism that Democrats engage in, fear in what the Commission may uncover:

The fear-mongering over what the Commission is trying to do — which is, simply and literally, examine states’ voter processes and publicly available rolls in an attempt to make sure only legal votes are cast and counted — is so extreme that it makes one wonder just what on earth Democrats are frightened might be discovered.

Perhaps what they fear is what The Republican National Lawyer’s Association and The Heritage Foundation have both discovered through their respective vote fraud databases which document hundreds of cases of proven vote fraud: the myth of vote fraud is no myth at all.

The Heritage database is here.  The RNLA's survey is here.  Sarah Lee has a strong point that the left is protesting and obstructing as if they have something to hide over a mere Advisory commission. 

Crying Wolf Over an Advisory Commission

Election Integrity opponents and Democrat activists have filed a flurry of lawsuits against the Presidential Election Integrity Commission.  So far those lawsuits have done little but waste time and taxpayer money.  

As the Washington Post reported (emphasis ours): 

[Judge Colleen] Kollar-Kotelly, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1997, ruled against the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a watchdog group that sought to block the commission’s data request because the panel had not conducted a full privacy impact statement as required by a 2002 federal law for new government electronic data collection systems.

She concluded that although the watchdog group had the right to sue under the law for a privacy review, the commission was a presidential advisory panel, not a federal agency subject to the privacy law.

“Neither the Commission or the Director of White House Information Technology — who is currently charged with collecting voter roll information on behalf of the Commission — are ‘agencies’ ” of the federal government subject to the court’s review in this matter, Kollar-Kotelly wrote.

“To the extent the factual circumstances change, however — for example, if the . . . powers of the Commission expand beyond those of a purely advisory body — this determination may need to be revisited.”

And that is just it, the Election Integrity Commission is just advisory and making recommendations to improve our elections.  Liberal election Integrity deniers and many establishment Democrats continue to oppose any efforts to take a bipartisan look at improving our election process. 

So the Democrats go to court to sue to stop an Advisory Commission from merely meeting and thus continue to undermine our election process.  And yesterday marked their second failure on the lawsuit front.  Earlier the same Bill Clinton appointed judge stated (emphasis ours):

Kollar-Kotelly's ruling said there was no sign that the commission's procedures were impeding public debate about its actions, particularly a hotly-debated request that states turn over public voter registration data for study by the panel. . . .

"The regulations anticipate that some advisory committee meetings will be made publicly accessible via internet access, and that this is permissible so long as this method is 'reasonably accessible to the public,' and can accommodate 'a reasonable number of interested members of the public," the judge wrote.

"Based on Defendants’ representations, the livestreaming service offered for the July 19 meeting appears likely to satisfy both of these requirements, and indeed will offer more members of the public the opportunity to observe proceedings than had only physical access been permitted."

As EIC Vice Chair Kris Kobach stated:

"We are not surprised by the ruling because the lawsuit itself was a perfect example of partisan special interest groups looking to prevent a bipartisan commission from conducting a public meeting to discuss how best to improve our election system," Kobach said in a statement. "To prevent the meeting would have only served the purpose of preventing the public from learning information that they have every right to know about the integrity of elections in this country."

Which begs the question President Trump asked at the first Election Integrity Commission hearing: "What are they worried about?  There’s something.  There always is."  

Why the Commission on Election Integrity is Necessary

In today's Daily Caller, RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen explains why the Presidential Advisory on Election Integrity is necessary. President Trump addressed the first meeting yesterday and stressed the importance of the Commission creating a substantive report to help protect the American electoral process. At one point, he asked about those states refusing to share publicly available voter registration information: 

If any state does not want to share this information, one has to wonder what they’re worried about.  And I asked the Vice President, I asked the Commission:  What are they worried about?  There’s something.  There always is. 

President Trump went on to note the integrity of American electoral systems is not a partisan issue or a conservative-liberal issue: 

This is not a Democrat or a Republican issue, it’s an American issue.  It’s about the concern of so many Americans that improper voting has taken place and canceling out the votes of lawful American citizens. 

 Mr. Thielen further states:

What was striking during the meeting is all the commissioners, with their range of experiences and philosophical views, agreed on one thing: reform is needed in our electoral system to increase voter confidence and participation in the system.  They all had different suggestions for where the most work is needed, but unlike the anti-integrity left, they recognized this Commission has an excellent opportunity to study America’s election system and make recommendations for the states to help protect the integrity of their elections.  We thank them for their service to the American people and for weathering the attacks of the left.

Other nations look up to America as the champion of democracy with open, fair and honest elections. Despite the harsh attack by the left including the media, this Commission is absolutely critical to help restore the American electoral process.

Highlights from First Meeting of Commission on Election Integrity

The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity met for its inaugural meeting today in Washington, D.C. The commissioners gave opening statements, shared what they think priorities for the commission to study should be, and emphasized that they hope the commission's work can increase voter confidence in the election system.

The RNLA live tweeted many of the key moments of the meeting, which was streamed live online. We wanted to summarize and bring you the highlights:


Vice President Pence, also serving as Commission Chair, during opening remarks:

"We want to hear the voice of the American voter," @VP says. #electionintegrity

— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) July 19, 2017

President Trump greeted the Commission. He rhetorically questions why some states willfully refuse to share public voting information:

President Trump on states that refused to share voter information: "One has to wonder what they're worried about" https://t.co/rIic2jaUqd

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) July 19, 2017

Vice President Pence, no less than three times, emphasized and reemphasized the following point:

"We have no preconceived notions or preordained results." ~ @VP #electionintegrity

— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) July 19, 2017

Commission Vice Chair Kris Kobach, and Kansas Secretary of State, attempted to dispell the rumors of the left:

Kobach reiterating private voter data will be kept private.

— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) July 19, 2017

Commissioner Bill Gardner, Democrat Secretary of State from New Hampshire, was consistently on point. He pointed out this excellent fact--voter ID does not equate to lower turnout--two of the highest turnout states have voter ID laws in place:

Busting the suppression myth: States with the highest voter turnout are those that require #voterID https://t.co/yvWiMqQ4zm pic.twitter.com/l9qcq9a0YH

— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) July 19, 2017

Commissioner McCormick, who also sits on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, did not parse words about her experience with voter rolls:

EAC Com. McCormick never seen an accurate voter list. Despite Obama com. supporting such efforts, Left has opposed efforts 4 clean lists.

— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) July 19, 2017

Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky, from the Heritage Foundation, wants to be clear not all errors in voter rolls are malicious, but, nonetheless, they need to be promptly corrected:

von Spakovsky wants to distinguish between error in duplicates on voter rolls and those who may be trying to "take advantage" of the system.

— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) July 19, 2017

You can watch the entire meeting here. The next meeting is not expected until sometime in late-September or October. In the meantime, we will keep you up-to-date with any news and developments.

DENIED: Federal Court Rejects TRO Requested Against Commission on Election Integrity

Breaking News: The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia refuses to grant a temporary restraining order (TRO) to delay the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity's opening meeting, which is scheduled for tomorrow.

A federal judge on Tuesday denied a lawsuit’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in order to force more transparency on the White House’s “election integrity” commission . . . The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed the lawsuit on July 10, arguing that the commission, chaired by Vice President Mike Pence and vice chaired by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, had violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act [FACA], a transparency statute that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said “is likely unfamiliar to even seasoned legal practitioners.”  

The Lawyers’ Committee argued that the election commission was required to open up its first in-person meeting, on July 19, to in-person public attendance, and that the commission needed to make additional documentation prior to that meeting, including records related to a June 28 phone call, available to the public.  

In her opinion Tuesday [available in its entirety here], Kollar-Kotelly pointed to a notice printed in the Federal Register on July 5 and said it outlined sufficient public accountability measures, at least for now. . . .  

[The Memorandum delivered by Judge Kollar-Kotelly] added later: “Moreover, the public will be permitted to view the meeting, to submit written comments, and to provide oral comments at subsequent meetings. There may be other documents that could, in theory, further facilitate this public debate, but based on the information presently available, it appears that the principal documents have or will be disclosed, and that the public and Plaintiff will have a substantial opportunity to debate and provide input with respect to the work of the Commission.”

Contrary to the redundant talking points of the left, the Commission is actually operating openly and transparently to allow the public to see its formation, discussions, and the work of the Commission. Furthermore, this bipartisan Commission is not being formed with any "preconceived conclusions" as guiding stars, rather it is open to assessing the true nature of America's election process and working to ensure election integrity.

Tomorrow, Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 11 AM EST marks the opening meeting of the Commission on Election Integrity in Washington, D.C. The agenda has been released to the public. The meeting will be broadcasted live online here and likely elsewhere (C-SPAN, cable news, etc.), too.

Christian Adams an Excellent Choice for Election Integrity Commission

President Trump announced additional members for his Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity yesterday: Christian Adams and Alan King, a Democrat from Alabama. These experts will greatly aid the commission in its work and bring a wealth of real-world experience and expertise to the commission.  

Christian Adams has experience in election administration at the state and federal levels.  Adams served as General Counsel to the South Carolina Secretary of State, advising on election law and administration, and served in the Voting Section at the U.S. Department of Justice.  He has litigated election cases all over the country.

Currently, Adams is doing the important work of enforcing liberals’ favorite voting law, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA or “motor voter”). The NVRA requires local election officials to take steps to ensure their voter registration rolls are accurate, including removing dead and ineligible persons. Many local election officials have not been following the law’s requirements, some from fear of litigation from liberal groups who oppose such efforts to keep the voter registration records accurate. Adams and his organization, Public Interest Legal Foundation, have been requesting information about the voter registration records from local officials, publicizing the errors in them and lack of efforts to keep them accurate, and in certain cases, filing suit to require the local official to follow the law.

Adams has something his critics sorely lack, experience with elections from both a federal and state government perspective. The importance of this cannot be overstated and is a key component for any federal commission in our state-based election system. This is in strong contrast to some of the harshest critics of the Commission on Election Integrity who base their views on biased partisan studies or spend their time in academia far removed from the nuts and bolts of elections. 

Hearing Today in Lawsuit Against Election Integrity Commission's Request for Public Voter Data

On Monday, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a motion for a temporary restraining order in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity from collecting publicly available voter registration data from the states, claiming that the "collection and aggregation of state voter roll data by a federal commission is without precedent" and would threaten voters' privacy (even though the data to be collected is already publicly available).  

On Wednesday, the Department of Justice responded, strongly opposing the granting of a TRO:

As a threshold matter, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order because EPIC failed to establish its standing. EPIC alleged no facts that the organization itself has suffered any injury, nor did it identify a single member who is suffering injury. In any event, EPIC’s members could not possibly be injured by the transfer of public information from one sovereign to another. Its concerns about a possible data breach at some point in the future by unknown third parties fall well short of an imminent and concrete injury that is traceable to the Commission and redressable by this Court. 

Even assuming the Court has jurisdiction, EPIC has not established its entitlement to emergency injunctive relief. EPIC has not shown that it will suffer any harm – much less irreparable harm – in the absence of a temporary restraining order. The voter data that EPIC seeks to enjoin the Commission from collecting is already made publicly available by the states. . . .  

Nor has EPIC established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits because it has no viable claims. Both the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the E-Government Act of 2002 apply only to “agencies,” but the Commission is not an “agency” within the meaning of these statutes because its sole purpose is to provide advice to the President. EPIC’s claim that the voluntary collection of publicly available voter information violates a constitutional right to informational privacy is meritless. Neither the Supreme Court nor the D.C. Circuit has held that such a right even exists. Even if such a right did exist, it would not apply to information that is already publicly available.

Finally, the public interest weighs against emergency injunctive relief. The President established the Commission “in order to promote fair and honest Federal elections.” Executive Order No. 13,799, 82 Fed. Reg. 22,389, 22,389 (May 11, 2017). By collecting voter data from the states, the Commission seeks to “enhance the American people’s confidence in the integrity of the voting processes used in Federal elections.” Id. EPIC seeks to halt this important work with meritless claims and a baseless fear about the states voluntarily submitting publicly available voter data to the federal government. Accordingly, EPIC’s motion for a temporary restraining order should be denied. 

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered a hearing for 4:00 today, outlining seven specific issues the parties should be prepared to address and ordering supplemental briefing on the issue of informational standing to be filed today as well.  During the hearing (which lasted over an hour), Judge Kollar-Kotelly announced she would not rule from the bench, and following the hearing, EPIC filed an amended complaint naming the Department of Defense as an additional defendant.

This story is obviously developing, and RNLA will be following it closely and posting updates here and on its Facebook page and Twitter feed.  The outcome of this suit could halt some of the Election Integrity Commission's important work before it has really even started, and at the very least, the litigation could be a distraction.

Promising Start to Protecting Freedom Through Election Integrity

RNLA Vice President for Communications Ron Hicks wrote today about how important election integrity is to securing our freedom through the ballot box and how the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity is beginning its important work to help states better administer their elections:

Last week, Commission Vice Chair and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach sent a letter to chief election officials in every state that set off another round of manufactured, faux outrage and misleading headlines.  What was in this letter that had everyone up in arms? A request for input from the states on a variety of election administration questions and suggestions about how the Commission could best help the states, and a request that the states provide already publicly available voter data. 

Unlike previous presidential election commissions, this Commission is taking the unprecedented step of not only recognizing states’ primary role in administering and protecting the integrity of elections, but in also asking states how the Commission can be of help to them.  Instead of taking a top-down (federal-to-state) approach, the Commission has given the states the opportunity to participate in the process and has asked for their input in recommending goals for the Commission. . . . The second part of the letter asks each state to provide “publicly available voter roll data for [your state], including, if publicly available under the laws of your state,” personal data typically recorded as part of a voter’s voter registration record.  As stated twice in that short portion of the request, the Commission is requesting only publicly available voter registration data. . . . 

Sadly—as has been far too common in recent months—the mainstream media’s reporting has twisted the letter into a threat by the Trump administration to gather and publish confidential information about every voter in the country.  Headlines tout the states’ non-compliance with the letter, claiming that some 44 states plus the District of Columbia are refusing to provide the information requested by the Commission. 

The truth is that 29 states are providing publicly available voter registration information, as determined by their state’s law, and just 18 states are not providing the data.  This is hardly the massive, overwhelming resistance to the Commission portrayed in the media.  And this is only part of the whole picture.  State laws in Tennessee and North Dakota do not allow release of voter registration data to the Commission. Yet, these states are being portrayed by media as being non-compliant when, in fact, their hands are just tied by their own laws.

The RNLA will highlight the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity's actions here and in our weekly Daily Caller column.

Election Integrity Commission Seeks Input from States

After Vice President Pence announced that the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity would hold its first meeting on July 19 and that all meetings of the commission will be open to the public, Commission Vice Chair Kris Kobach sent a letter to state election officials asking how the Commission can best help the states:

As the Commission begins it work, I invite you to contribute your views and recommendations throughout this process. In particular: 

1. What changes, if any, to federal election laws would you recommend to enhance the integrity of federal elections? 

2. How can the Commission support state and local election administrators with regard to information technology security and vulnerabilities? 

3. What laws, policies, or other issues hinder your ability to ensure the integrity of elections you administer? 

4. What evidence or information do you have regarding instances of voter fraud or registration fraud in your state?  

5. What convictions for election-related crimes have occurred in your state since the November 2000 federal election? 

6. What recommendations do you have for preventing voter intimidation or disenfranchisement? 

7. What other issues do you believe the Commission should consider? . . .

On behalf of my fellow commissioners, I also want to acknowledge your important leadership role in administering the elections within your state and the importance of state-level authority in our federalist system. It is crucial for the Commission to consider your input as it collects data and identifies areas of opportunity to increase the integrity of our election systems.

This Commission, recognizing the unique role and power of the states in our federalist election system, has given the states the unprecedented opportunity to have input in the Commission's focus and goals.  With the past two presidential election commissions, the chairmen determined the focus and goals.  But the left has responded with its tired refrain of voter suppression and Democrat secretaries of state have already declared they are going to resist any requests from the commission to help make their voting systems better.  

These questions are mostly non-controversial.  They ask for information and opinions and are not partisan or political on their face.   Question two even provides an opportunity for Democrat state officials to opine on the threat that Russian interference posed to last year's election, one of the left's current favorite narratives.  For the questions that are controversial such as those on vote fraud, this provides an opportunity for election officials to make their case denying it is a problem.   

Further, question seven gives an open-ended opportunity for an official who thinks elections are anything less than perfect.  

This shows the political and disingenuous nature of those opposing the report, for they literally have the opportunity to influence what both what the Commission studies and the recommendations it makes. If Democrats aren't willing to provide their opinion on election issues when asked, they will have very little credibility to criticize the Commission's report when it is released.    

Instead of engaging in a bipartisan, federal-state dialogue about how to make American elections better, they are sadly and reflexively resisting the Commission and missing the opportunity to have their voices heard to make elections more open, fair, and honest.

Election Integrity Commission Seeks Public Voter Registration Information from States

On Wednesday, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Vice Chair Kris Kobach sent a letter to state election officials requesting publicly available voter registration information to help the Commission do its work:

In addition, 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 [your state], 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.

Despite this request being limited to existing and only publicly available information, the left has decried this as a witch hunt, voter suppression tool, intrusive into voters' privacy, and federal overreach.

Liberals and Democrats admit that the voter registration rolls are messy and that this is a problem, but they resist local election officials' attempts to clean them or determine what systems would help them be more accurate.  

Rhode Island recently announced that it has found 150,000 inaccurate voter registration records in a state with a voting age population of 842,321.  Shouldn't states be welcoming the opportunity to prevent such inaccuracies from occurring?  This is a problem that the left and right agree exists.  If the left won't participate in even studying an issue that they admit is a problem, that begs the question if the left cares about fixing any part of our election process.    

The Left’s Crusade Against Honest Elections

In this week’s Daily Caller Op-Ed, Michael Thielen, RNLA Executive Director, highlighted how the extreme left and many Democrats are against verifiably honest elections in America. His piece explains how left-wing ideologues have written "articles"--what tantamount to opinion pieces--and passes them off as news articles. The piece goes on to praise, the too often vilified, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and his efforts to ensure more honest elections in Kansas.

Secretary Kobach has been a leader in the effort to clean up voting lists as the head of the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck program, one of two interstate voter registration data sharing programs endorsed by the PCEA [President Obama's Presidential Commission on Election Administration].  Crosscheck “identifies possible duplicate registrations among states, and . . . provides evidence of possible double votes,“ and it is used by such deep blue Democrat states as Massachusetts and New York. . . . 

Clean and accurate voter registration rolls are an important election integrity protection with broad, bipartisan support among the public and election officials, which you would never know by listening to the radical liberals who oppose basic election integrity protections. Secretary Kobach has led an effort by the majority of Secretaries of State across the country to clean up voter rolls and clean voter registration rolls are exactly what terrifies Berman, as he writes that the commission will “make policy recommendations at the federal and state level, which could include support for suppressive policies like . . . voter-rolls purges.”. . .

The left recycles the same talking points, again and again, about how efforts to prohibit non-citizens and illegal aliens from voting is somehow wrong. They are--after all--not American citizens, nor entitled to a vote.

The irony that is lost on [left media, like the NYT's author Ari] Berman is that every illegal alien vote disenfranchises a U.S. citizen voting legally. . . The reality is Berman is attempting the very thing he accuses Kobach of seeking: partisan advantage in voting laws.  The difference is that Kobach seeks to disenfranchise illegal voters, while Berman’s policies allow disenfranchisement of legal voters. . . .  

However, the left perpetuated this point because non-citizens vote Democrat in elections. Reported studies have confirmed this point.

The Democrats are so scared of losing a fallacious talking point to appeal to their liberal base that they don’t even want to allow a study on issues of wide bipartisan support, such a voter registration list accuracy and maintenance, for fear of what other important issues the commission may investigate. . . .The New York Times and other mainstream media outlets are providing a vehicle for the radical liberals now controlling the Democratic Party to disseminate their anti-election integrity message. The sensational rhetoric and fact-free war is unfortunate in what should be a common goal for all Americans: open, fair and honest elections.

The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity's purpose is to look into systemic problems plaguing the current system. However, preemptively attacking those who a part of the commission is not productive and really is just the left's ongoing saga to attack any effort to improve the system or make an election fair, open, and honest. The fact is the left can do better. The left should do better.