Forty-one states have refused Kobach's request for voter information

[ABX]

We've gone from 3 to 23 to now 41 refusing to release private voter data in just a few days.

Forty-one states have defied the Trump administration's request for private voter information, according to a CNN inquiry to all 50 states.
State leaders and voting boards across the country have responded to the letter with varying degrees of cooperation -- from altogether rejecting the request to expressing eagerness to supply information that is public....

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/03/politics/kris-kobach-letter-voter-fraud-commission-information/index.html

[IsailedawayfromFR]

We've gone from 3 to 23 to now 41 refusing to release private voter data in just a few days.

A rare event, getting cooperation of this many states to reign in the feds.

38 is the magic number to do the next best thing - return to federalism.

[Suppressed]

One beauty of federalism is what a state decides to do with its vote is up to the state.  It determines what electors to send, what senators to send, what representatives to send.  Fraud can't give the state any more power.

If we went to a popular vote, that would change.  So Trump has unwittingly unleashed one thing through his overreach...now, whenever someone pushes popular vote, we can say, "Well, that will require a federal-level voter fraud probe."


There's not a single Federal office that is

[the_doc]

@AbaraXas
@XenaLee
@Smokin Joe
@IsailedawayfromFR
@Sanguine   
 
From the linked article:  "According to the Associated Press on Friday, Texas election officials will provide public voter information to the election commission. While Secretary of State Rolando Pablos didn't list what records would be sent to the commission, he said in a statement he will protect private information."

This seems to be a far cry from the rumor that Governor Abbott essentially said to the federal commission GFY.   

***

My concern in this fracas is that we will never get to the bottom of this voter fraud mess if we don't have an aggressive investigation.  The cover-up by Blue States and the MSM is continuing. Notice in the article the comments by the Blue States:  they say this whole thing is just a political witch hunt by Trump and that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

The Blue States do not clearly care about Constitutional jurisdiction issues.  They just want to protect their election fraud system.  We have to find a legally/Constitutionally proper way to break through this stonewalling. 

The surest way to break the back of the Socialists' treasonous conspiracy would be a pretty massive study of the data, including some data available only to the individual States at this time.  Ideally it would be a statistical study triangulating on personal identities and voter registration lists.  However, it may very well be that the States don't even need to divulge all of the most sensitive info requested by the Executive Branch's commission.  That seems to be the underlying position of Texas and several other Red States, along with concerns about federal Executive Branch overreach in the request. Still, I believe, as I said on your other thread, that an investigation by Congress would take the jurisdictional issues off the table.  A Congressional subpoena would be completely justifiable, like a proper warrant, based on the evidence that already does exist for voter fraud. 

I would go on to opine that recognized legal safeguards could surely be implemented under the terms of a Congressional subpoena (such as Special Master arrangements, perhaps?) to protect the privacy of the citizens of each State.  I, for one, think that the Red States would welcome a well-thought-out arrangement of that sort.  I think the Red States would see that we must do whatever we can to break the back of the monstrous conspiracy, lest the Red States soon become Purple States and eventually Blue States--at which point our Republic is irrevocably lost to the Global Socialists.

There is no one on this forum who is any more zealous for States' Rights than I am.  (I don't even revere Abraham Lincoln as much as most Republicans do.)  There is no one on this forum who is any more zealous for the Constitution than I am.  But we have to find a proper way to expose the voting fraud with the brightest possible spotlight. 

[XenaLee]

@AbaraXas
@XenaLee
@Smokin Joe
@IsailedawayfromFR
@Sanguine   
 
From the linked article:  "According to the Associated Press on Friday, Texas election officials will provide public voter information to the election commission. While Secretary of State Rolando Pablos didn't list what records would be sent to the commission, he said in a statement he will protect private information."

This seems to be a far cry from the rumor that Governor Abbott essentially said to the federal commission GFY.   

***

My concern in this fracas is that we will never get to the bottom of this voter fraud mess if we don't have an aggressive investigation.  The cover-up by Blue States and the MSM is continuing. Notice in the article the comments by the Blue States:  they say this whole thing is just a political witch hunt by Trump and that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

The Blue States do not clearly care about Constitutional jurisdiction issues.  They just want to protect their election fraud system.  We have to find a legally/Constitutionally proper way to break through this stonewalling. 

The surest way to break the back of the Socialists' treasonous conspiracy would be a pretty massive study of the data, including some data available only to the individual States at this time.  Ideally it would be a statistical study triangulating on personal identities and voter registration lists.  However, it may very well be that the States don't even need to divulge all of the most sensitive info requested by the Executive Branch's commission.  That seems to be the underlying position of Texas and several other Red States, along with concerns about federal Executive Branch overreach in the request. Still, I believe, as I said on your other thread, that an investigation by Congress would take the jurisdictional issues off the table.  A Congressional subpoena would be completely justifiable, like a proper warrant, based on the evidence that already does exist for voter fraud. 

I would go on to opine that recognized legal safeguards could surely be implemented under the terms of a Congressional subpoena (such as Special Master arrangements, perhaps?) to protect the privacy of the citizens of each State.  I, for one, think that the Red States would welcome a well-thought-out arrangement of that sort.  I think the Red States would see that we must do whatever we can to break the back of the monstrous conspiracy, lest the Red States soon become Purple States and eventually Blue States--at which point our Republic is irrevocably lost to the Global Socialists.

There is no one on this forum who is any more zealous for States' Rights than I am.  (I don't even revere Abraham Lincoln as much as most Republicans do.)  There is no one on this forum who is any more zealous for the Constitution than I am.  But we have to find a proper way to expose the voting fraud with the brightest possible spotlight.

I agree... but giving personal data on voters and how they vote to the feds is not the way.  Sooner or later another rat will slime into the WH and that data will be used against each and every voter that didn't or doesn't vote Democrat.   

Instead, there should be a commission of investigators assigned to each/every state that goes in to uncover election and voter fraud.  Another "way" would be to stop or eliminate rogue judges who 'deem' states voter ID laws to be ""discriminatory"" and arbitrarily stop those states' attempts to keep illegals or unqualified people from voting.  But I'm never holding my breath for the latter to ever happen.

[HonestJohn]

One beauty of federalism is what a state decides to do with its vote is up to the state.  It determines what electors to send, what senators to send, what representatives to send.  Fraud can't give the state any more power.

If we went to a popular vote, that would change.  So Trump has unwittingly unleashed one thing through his overreach...now, whenever someone pushes popular vote, we can say, "Well, that will require a federal-level voter fraud probe."


There's not a single Federal office that is

There is a disconnect here. 

Why would a change to the popular vote require a voter fraud investigation?

The Federal government can, even more easily and at a lesser cost, just accept all the state rolls as accurate.

[the_doc]

I agree... but giving personal data on voters and how they vote to the feds is not the way.  Sooner or later another rat will slime into the WH and that data will be used against each and every voter that didn't or doesn't vote Democrat.

   
As I mentioned in my post, Congress would have to build into the data collection-and-review system several confidentiality safeguards--including the supervised, certified destruction of data at intervals in the process.  This is doable.  Even if it seems dicey, I believe the stakes are too high not to demand the data that permits good men to get to the bottom of the whole mess once and for all.

Instead, there should be a commission of investigators assigned to each/every state that goes in to uncover election and voter fraud.

Compartmentalizing the investigation on a State-by-State basis would facilitate some of the safeguards I have been talking about because it would place investigators closer to the data and more accountable for protection of privacy.  But your proposal would still have to entail a series of (fifty?) federal investigative commissions operating with meaningful investigative powers pursuant to the serious, unchallengeable authority of Congress. We cannot even accidentally allow Blue State foxes to keep guarding their own hen houses. 

Another "way" would be to stop or eliminate rogue judges who 'deem' states voter ID laws to be ""discriminatory"" and arbitrarily stop those states' attempts to keep illegals or unqualified people from voting.  But I'm never holding my breath for the latter to ever happen.

The fact that you are not holding your breath argues, in my opinion, that we have to use Constitutionally authorized federal (Congressional!) power to expose the problem--which will be no small task.  I think that this exposure needs to be so clear, so explosive as to crush the Dems (not to mention the lying, crooked MSM).

(As I also pointed out on the other thread started by AbaraXas, I think even the average Dimwit would eventually have to face up to the fact that we are fighting a massive conspiracy to overthrow the lawful government of the United States by election fraud.  I think most people will realize that this fraud is obvious treason. 

And I think Americans will realize that giving the individual flunkies who run this scam at the precinct level a mere four months in jail is not enough.   They should go to prison for five years for their grassroots-level complicity--and that the "community organizers" at the higher levels of the conspiracy should be prosecuted, convicted, and executed for outright treason.)

[berdie]

[From the linked article:  "According to the Associated Press on Friday, Texas election officials will provide public voter information to the election commission. While Secretary of State Rolando Pablos didn't list what records would be sent to the commission, he said in a statement he will protect private information."

This seems to be a far cry from the rumor that Governor Abbott essentially said to the federal commission GFY.   

***

The operative phrase here is "public information". I read an article a couple of days ago about this that listed what was being asked for vs what would be turned over, but sadly I can't find it.  It doesn't encompass what the government wants. But it seems this is public info, which can be purchased.

So I don't think Abbott's statement was wrong. But what ticks me off is the amount of public information available for a right of a citizen of this country to vote. I guess I should have thought of it...but never have.

[Victoria33]

[From the linked article:  "According to the Associated Press on Friday, Texas election officials will provide public voter information to the election commission.  *** The operative phrase here is "public information". I read an article a couple of days ago about this that listed what was being asked for vs what would be turned over, but sadly I can't find it.  It doesn't encompass what the government wants. But it seems this is public info, which can be purchased.  So I don't think Abbott's statement was wrong. But what ticks me off is the amount of public information available for a right of a citizen of this country to vote. I guess I should have thought of it...but never have.

@berdie

I worked with these lists for twelve years.  You can buy your county list of voters.  It is public information.  What appears is your name, your address, your voting precinct number, and what party you voted for in the last primary.  Your private information is not there: the last four digits of your SS number, your email address, your phone number.

In Texas, you do not declare a party preference.  If you vote in a Republican Primary, you are a Republican until the next primary.  The next primary, if you vote in a Democrat Primary, you are a Democrat until the next primary.

That commission can buy the county list any time, of they can buy the state list from the Secretary of State.

[Hondo69]

[1] It's a bit confusing - is it private data or public data?

[2] The Justice Dept. likes to hold the hammer over the heads of certain states for what it calls past instances of discrimination.  How they determine what constitutes discrimination has never made any sense to me.  Shining a light on the whole mess has the potential to remove one federal hammer which you would think would be a plus from the state's point of view.

[3] Everyone knows voter fraud exists.  And everyone knows which side commits the majority of the fraud.  Then you have the census and the precious tax dollars tied its numbers, skewed or not.  Any attempt to clean up voter polls places a big stick of dynamite in both election results and the census.  Opening either can of worms will meet major resistance.

[SunkenCiv]

...according to a CNN inquiry to all 50 states...

[berdie]

@berdie

I worked with these lists for twelve years.  You can buy your county list of voters.  It is public information.  What appears is your name, your address, your voting precinct number, and what party you voted for in the last primary.  Your private information is not there: the last four digits of your SS number, your email address, your phone number.

In Texas, you do not declare a party preference.  If you vote in a Republican Primary, you are a Republican until the next primary.  The next primary, if you vote in a Democrat Primary, you are a Democrat until the next primary.

That commission can buy the county list any time, of they can buy the state list from the Secretary of State.

Thank you for your reply @Victoria33 . I don't mean to be so delayed in answering .

Actually, my name, address, precinct and how I voted in the primary IS private information. Truthfully, I think you are a very nice lady. If you asked me, personally who I voted for in the primary, I might share. But as nice as you are, the Republican Party nor you should be privy to that information.

Perhaps there should be an "opt out of sharing" feature.

[Suppressed]

There is a disconnect here. 

Why would a change to the popular vote require a voter fraud investigation?

The Federal government can, even more easily and at a lesser cost, just accept all the state rolls as accurate.

@HonestJohn
Sorry I didn't see this earlier.

Under the Electoral College system, a state, let's say California, gets the same number of electors, regardless of whether they claim 51% of voters chose the candidate or 100%.  But under a popular vote system, every vote is potentially stealing representation from other states.  Every vote becomes a federal issue, not just a state one.  Confirmation will be required on the federal/interstate level.

[HonestJohn]

@HonestJohn
Sorry I didn't see this earlier.

Under the Electoral College system, a state, let's say California, gets the same number of electors, regardless of whether they claim 51% of voters chose the candidate or 100%.  But under a popular vote system, every vote is potentially stealing representation from other states.  Every vote becomes a federal issue, not just a state one.  Confirmation will be required on the federal/interstate level.

And that matters to politicians?

[Victoria33]

Actually, my name, address, precinct and how I voted in the primary IS private information. Truthfully, I think you are a very nice lady. If you asked me, personally who I voted for in the primary, I might share. But as nice as you are, the Republican Party nor you should be privy to that information.
Perhaps there should be an "opt out of sharing" feature.

@berdie

Thanks for your reply.  The law is what it is.  All voter lists can be had.  I used them when I was helping candidates get elected.  The first time I used one was when my husband ran for Republican County Chair.  With that county list I bought, I looked up their phone numbers (that was before people had cell phones and cancelled their land lines) and called the voters to tell them about my husband running for county chair.  He was elected.  Later, I helped other candidates including district judges.  I put those several counties' lists together by family so the judges could sent one piece of mail to the family instead of sending a mailing to each family member.

On another thread here it tells of voters cancelling their voter status, taking their name off the list, so their name won't go to Trump.  You could do that now at your county courthouse, then register again before the next primary. 

The internet has us all listed somewhere.  Put your name in internet search, and information about you will likely be there.  I regret that is true, but it is.  I know a woman in Italy that had a man stalking her and she has never used the internet due to that and there is nothing about her on the internet.

I have a certain man and his wife who are friends.  I found information about them on the internet and let them know that as they are not internet friendly - don't know how to use it.  They told me to remove as much as I could about them and I did that for them.  One time, the man's son gave him a Kindle and he waited for a year until I came to see them, so I could register it for him and download books.  I got the books he wanted on his Kindle.

The internet can be friendly but there are going to be problems about our personal information getting on there.

[Suppressed]

And that matters to politicians?

It matters to mathematics.