This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/07/us/politics/voter-fraud-commission.html
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Even Some Republicans Balk at Trump’s Voter Data Request. Why the Uproar? | Even Some Republicans Balk at Trump’s Voter Data Request. Why the Uproar? |
| (about 3 hours later) | |
| The political uproar over a White House commission’s request to state election officials for a trove of personal data on the nation’s voters continued as secretaries of state gathered for their annual meeting on Friday in Indianapolis. | The political uproar over a White House commission’s request to state election officials for a trove of personal data on the nation’s voters continued as secretaries of state gathered for their annual meeting on Friday in Indianapolis. |
| The panel was set up to investigate claims of voter fraud, which experts generally agree is rare, after President Trump claimed illegal voting had cost him the popular vote in November’s election, and it has come under attack by election officials from both parties. | The panel was set up to investigate claims of voter fraud, which experts generally agree is rare, after President Trump claimed illegal voting had cost him the popular vote in November’s election, and it has come under attack by election officials from both parties. |
| As of Thursday evening, 20 states and the District of Columbia had outright rejected the request by Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state and vice chairman of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, which works to promote expanded access to the ballot. Most of the remaining states either said they were studying the request or agreed to provide only public information like lists of voters who are registered. | As of Thursday evening, 20 states and the District of Columbia had outright rejected the request by Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state and vice chairman of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, which works to promote expanded access to the ballot. Most of the remaining states either said they were studying the request or agreed to provide only public information like lists of voters who are registered. |
| Some of the reaction was blistering, even from Republican state officials. Mississippi’s Republican secretary of state said last week those behind the request could “go jump in the Gulf of Mexico.” (The news organization Mississippi Today reported on Thursday that Mississippi has been providing this data to Interstate Crosscheck, a Kansas initiative with similar goals that Mr. Kobach runs.) | Some of the reaction was blistering, even from Republican state officials. Mississippi’s Republican secretary of state said last week those behind the request could “go jump in the Gulf of Mexico.” (The news organization Mississippi Today reported on Thursday that Mississippi has been providing this data to Interstate Crosscheck, a Kansas initiative with similar goals that Mr. Kobach runs.) |
| The commission fired back on Wednesday, issuing a statement that called the dust-up “fake news” arising from “obstruction by a handful of state politicians.” Some election scholars say, however, that there are real questions about the panel’s intent. | The commission fired back on Wednesday, issuing a statement that called the dust-up “fake news” arising from “obstruction by a handful of state politicians.” Some election scholars say, however, that there are real questions about the panel’s intent. |
| Here’s what to know about the panel and access to voter data. | Here’s what to know about the panel and access to voter data. |
| The commission’s request is voluminous: For 200 million voters, it seeks names, addresses, dates of birth, political affiliations, the last four digits of Social Security numbers, which elections they voted in and whether they are active, inactive or canceled voters. It also requests records of felony convictions, whether voters are registered in other states, and whether they serve in the military or live or cast votes by mail from abroad. | The commission’s request is voluminous: For 200 million voters, it seeks names, addresses, dates of birth, political affiliations, the last four digits of Social Security numbers, which elections they voted in and whether they are active, inactive or canceled voters. It also requests records of felony convictions, whether voters are registered in other states, and whether they serve in the military or live or cast votes by mail from abroad. |
| The official request asks for information if it is “publicly available,” which is commonly the case for much of this data. | The official request asks for information if it is “publicly available,” which is commonly the case for much of this data. |
| The panel wants to compare state voter databases with “a number of different databases, looking for the possibility for areas where voter rolls could be strengthened,” Marc Lotter, a spokesman for Vice President Mike Pence, told the investigative news organization ProPublica on Thursday. | The panel wants to compare state voter databases with “a number of different databases, looking for the possibility for areas where voter rolls could be strengthened,” Marc Lotter, a spokesman for Vice President Mike Pence, told the investigative news organization ProPublica on Thursday. |
| Mr. Kobach, who prepared the request without input from at least some of the other commissioners, has a history with this issue: He already oversees the Interstate Crosscheck program that compares voter rolls from some 30 states in an effort to turn up people who vote in two states. Crosscheck has been widely criticized as inaccurate; one analysis found that of the 7.2 million potential double voters the program had identified, no more than four were actually accused of deliberately registering or voting in two states. | Mr. Kobach, who prepared the request without input from at least some of the other commissioners, has a history with this issue: He already oversees the Interstate Crosscheck program that compares voter rolls from some 30 states in an effort to turn up people who vote in two states. Crosscheck has been widely criticized as inaccurate; one analysis found that of the 7.2 million potential double voters the program had identified, no more than four were actually accused of deliberately registering or voting in two states. |
| Voting rights advocates and some scholars say they have concerns that Mr. Kobach, who maintains that voter fraud is pervasive, may want to build a case for stricter requirements for registering to vote and casting ballots. They also argue that the database comparisons he wants to make will, like the Crosscheck program, vastly overestimate the potential for fraud. | Voting rights advocates and some scholars say they have concerns that Mr. Kobach, who maintains that voter fraud is pervasive, may want to build a case for stricter requirements for registering to vote and casting ballots. They also argue that the database comparisons he wants to make will, like the Crosscheck program, vastly overestimate the potential for fraud. |
| Yes and no. The Privacy Act of 1974 bars the federal government from recording citizens’ party affiliations in most cases. But Congress has the power under Article 1 of the Constitution to compel states to produce other data of its choice, said Michael McDonald, the director of the United States Elections Project at the University of Florida. | Yes and no. The Privacy Act of 1974 bars the federal government from recording citizens’ party affiliations in most cases. But Congress has the power under Article 1 of the Constitution to compel states to produce other data of its choice, said Michael McDonald, the director of the United States Elections Project at the University of Florida. |
| As for protecting the data, a representative for the panel has said that it will be secured in computers controlled by the commission’s chairman, Mr. Pence. But there’s a potential loophole, Mr. McDonald argued: Collecting the data for a federal report raises questions as to whether it would be publicly available to anyone who filed a Freedom of Information Act request. | As for protecting the data, a representative for the panel has said that it will be secured in computers controlled by the commission’s chairman, Mr. Pence. But there’s a potential loophole, Mr. McDonald argued: Collecting the data for a federal report raises questions as to whether it would be publicly available to anyone who filed a Freedom of Information Act request. |
| A lot of reasons — legal, political and historical. | A lot of reasons — legal, political and historical. |
| Many states have laws barring the release of even partial Social Security numbers or birth dates, because of their propensity to be used for identity theft. When Georgia accidentally released full Social Security numbers on CDs containing otherwise public voter data in 2015 — the so-called Peach Breach — the public was appalled. In another instance, Ohio released the Social Security numbers of at least 5.7 million voters — 80 percent of the state’s electorate — because the secretary of state’s office failed to remove them from public data requests. The Ohio secretary of state at that time was J. Kenneth Blackwell, a member of the commission making the current requests. | Many states have laws barring the release of even partial Social Security numbers or birth dates, because of their propensity to be used for identity theft. When Georgia accidentally released full Social Security numbers on CDs containing otherwise public voter data in 2015 — the so-called Peach Breach — the public was appalled. In another instance, Ohio released the Social Security numbers of at least 5.7 million voters — 80 percent of the state’s electorate — because the secretary of state’s office failed to remove them from public data requests. The Ohio secretary of state at that time was J. Kenneth Blackwell, a member of the commission making the current requests. |
| Many Democratic secretaries of state are resisting because they believe the commission is laying the groundwork for restrictions that will mostly make it harder for traditionally Democratic constituencies — minorities, young people and the poor — to cast ballots. Even the drafters of the Constitution could not agree on nationwide rules for casting votes. For Republicans in particular, the resentment has only increased since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 and the National Voter Registration Act — the motor-voter law — in 1993. | |
| The Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires every state to produce a list of registered voters, commonly known as a voter file, which includes, at a minimum, voters’ names, addresses and a list of elections in which they have participated. | The Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires every state to produce a list of registered voters, commonly known as a voter file, which includes, at a minimum, voters’ names, addresses and a list of elections in which they have participated. |
| States differ on who may retrieve the voter file. A few, like North Carolina and Ohio, allow anyone to download data from state websites. But New Hampshire and Virginia release data only to political candidates or organizations like political action committees that participate in voter registration or turnout drives. | States differ on who may retrieve the voter file. A few, like North Carolina and Ohio, allow anyone to download data from state websites. But New Hampshire and Virginia release data only to political candidates or organizations like political action committees that participate in voter registration or turnout drives. |
| Most states fall in between, allowing relatively broad access but restricting the legal uses of the data. Anyone can purchase and download Pennsylvania’s voter file for $20, but must agree that it will not be used for commercial purposes or be republished online. In Minnesota, statewide reports cost $46 but are available only to voters registered in the state and are restricted to use in elections, political activities or law enforcement. | Most states fall in between, allowing relatively broad access but restricting the legal uses of the data. Anyone can purchase and download Pennsylvania’s voter file for $20, but must agree that it will not be used for commercial purposes or be republished online. In Minnesota, statewide reports cost $46 but are available only to voters registered in the state and are restricted to use in elections, political activities or law enforcement. |
| In addition to the common fields required by the Help America Vote Act, some states like Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky reveal full dates of birth, while others, like Colorado and Louisiana, include just birth years or voters’ ages. Many states include the voter’s gender and party affiliation. A few states provide the voter’s race. | In addition to the common fields required by the Help America Vote Act, some states like Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky reveal full dates of birth, while others, like Colorado and Louisiana, include just birth years or voters’ ages. Many states include the voter’s gender and party affiliation. A few states provide the voter’s race. |
| Some states charge significantly more for voter files: $2,500 in South Dakota, and a penny a name, in Louisiana. Texas charges $328.13 plus $0.0000625 per voter. | Some states charge significantly more for voter files: $2,500 in South Dakota, and a penny a name, in Louisiana. Texas charges $328.13 plus $0.0000625 per voter. |
| Candidates, parties and political action committees are frequent consumers of voter files. They use the files to target registered voters in phone drives, door-knocking canvasses and by mail, and the files can be the base of more complex microtargeting efforts. Each state’s data comes in a different format, so putting together a single voter file to run a national campaign requires significant technical expertise. | |
| As a result, external vendors have sprung up to assemble and process files and sell them to parties and candidates. “We have a fairly substantial team just doing that work,” said Tom Bonier of TargetSmart, a voter data vendor that typically works with Democrats. “It takes dozens of full-time staffers to collect the data and keep it current.” | As a result, external vendors have sprung up to assemble and process files and sell them to parties and candidates. “We have a fairly substantial team just doing that work,” said Tom Bonier of TargetSmart, a voter data vendor that typically works with Democrats. “It takes dozens of full-time staffers to collect the data and keep it current.” |
| Others also make use of voter data. Academics studying political participation, campaign techniques and voter suppression request files from states, and some pollsters base their samples on voter history or partisan registration information contained in voter files. Media organizations, including The New York Times, use voter files as well to illustrate features of the electorate. The Times’s data set comes from L2, a nonpartisan political data vendor. | |
| No. States record whether a person voted in a given election, not who they selected. “Not even we know that,” Wayne Williams, the Republican secretary of state in Colorado, said in an interview. In primary elections, however, many states do record which party’s primary a voter participated in. | No. States record whether a person voted in a given election, not who they selected. “Not even we know that,” Wayne Williams, the Republican secretary of state in Colorado, said in an interview. In primary elections, however, many states do record which party’s primary a voter participated in. |