General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy is no legal group challenging this voter registration info request for its "chilling effect" on
potential voters? The request itself is a form of voter suppression. Whether or not it goes into affect, it has already done its damage to potential voter registrants especially among minorities. There ought to be a civil rights case on this that tell the WH to cease this action and informs the potential voters and registered voters that their data will not be shared with the government without privacy protections. It this is not against the law, then Congress ought to pass a law to protect this data.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
SHRED
(28,136 posts)
Gothmog
(145,784 posts)
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)is wrong, and will not send personal information about voters. The public information, which normally is just name and address, and maybe year of birth, is generally available to anyone willing to pay for its duplication. I have zero problem with that.
Anything more, however, is a violation of the 4th Amendment, it seems to me, and if the Trump administration tries to coerce states to provide it, that will and should be challenged in the federal courts.
Lord_at_War
(61 posts)get party registration and voting habits ("Presidential years" and "off years"
for any voter at most state websites.
Digital Age Blues...
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)Not all states host open public voter records.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)It is in every state public record. Exactly what's in the record varies, but at a minimum name, registration status and address.
Part of my job is doing background checks on people and verifying their info and eligibility before my employer or someone we are contracted to sends that person info off to the Feds for a check. One tool I use to verify past residency status is voter records, and for the states I do the most work in I have archives of that data going back 10 years for every year. It is easy data to obtain.
Gothmog
(145,784 posts)There will be lawsuits but only after we can prove that someone has standing to challenge the order
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,940 posts)and at this point there's no legal jeopardy for the states for refusing to turn over the data (in fact, most of the states are just following their own laws). No harm, no foul - yet. If, however, the request becomes a demand - say Dolt 45 issues an executive order requiring the states to turn over the data (an EO created the commission in the first place) - now you have a justiciable controversy, and things will happen. The ACLU is keeping an eye on it: https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-comment-trump-administrations-effort-gather-details-all-voters-america
Gothmog
(145,784 posts)Right now, a lawsuit would be premature in that no data has been given to Kobach and most states have rejected Kobach's request http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/03/politics/kris-kobach-letter-voter-fraud-commission-information/index.html Someone has to be harmed and have standing before a lawsuit can be brought
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,940 posts)
Girard442
(6,087 posts)With street addresses, no less. A valuable resource for planning that perfect cross-burning.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Bringing the KKK into this is needless fear mongering.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)I know here in NC I can do down to the board of elections in any county with a flash drive and walk away with a list of every voter, their party, address and a record of what elections they voted in.
I just downloaded the entire database for another state to check up on something at work. Click a few links, download the file.
Gothmog
(145,784 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)A bunch of people here, not just you, keep saying these things.
As if our own awareness, our own personal world of ignorance about the worlds of others, defines reality.
Seriously, WHO would care more or be more involved than people who have made protecting the vote their life's work? Not any of us, and democracy is about as sacred as anything can be to me.
nikibatts
(2,198 posts)leftstreet
(36,117 posts)That the request itself informs people who may now choose not to register believing their personal data is not private?
nikibatts
(2,198 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,940 posts)or a class of plaintiffs who can credibly demonstrate that they actually are or will be harmed. For a lawsuit to get past a motion to dismiss, it isn't enough to speculate that some unidentified people might be deterred from voting or registering to vote because they might be afraid the government will collect or disclose private information about them. While this might be an inchoate effect of the request, it's not enough for a lawsuit. So far all that has happened is the creation of a commission that has ineptly asked states to turn over voter data, some of which is considered private under those states' laws.
Most states are not complying as to private data because their own laws prohibit its release; others have told the commission to pound sand altogether. The data that are public would be available anyhow and the commission can get it on its own, though with more effort than a simple handover by the states. Wisconsin, for example, says they can have the public data if they pay $12,500 for it, like any political campaign that wanted it. You have a basis for a lawsuit when the commission demands the data, especially the private information, under color of law, with a threat of some consequences (loss of some federal funding, etc.). Under those circumstances both the states themselves and their individual citizens whose privacy rights and voting rights would be threatened would have a cause of action.
Gothmog
(145,784 posts)To sue, one must have standing which means that they have suffered a true injury that can be remedied by the courts. The ACLU will sue as soon as they can identify someone with standing
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,940 posts)nikibatts
(2,198 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)nikibatts
(2,198 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Your registration status and party affiliation are public record right now.
This silly dog and pony show of a commission won't reveal anything new that a boss who would fire you over would suddenly act one.
What grounds would anyone have to fear being fired? What would happen that can't already with what is public knowledge?
Let's keep the claims in the realm of a realistic and reasonable.
former9thward
(32,120 posts)It is available in all states to the political parties and to candidates. I have worked on many campaigns and have been a candidate myself on several occasions. We always had voter information telling us who Ds and Rs and Indies were and their information such as address, phone and sometimes email addresses. The same information told us how they voted in the primary and what elections they voted in.
The issue with the Trump group is that they are not a political party or a candidate. So many, if not most, of the states are declining to give the information. But it would be, and is, available to the Republican and Democratic parties of those states. It is also available to third parties who have qualified for ballot access in those states.
leftstreet
(36,117 posts)Why are they asking for this?
former9thward
(32,120 posts)are registered in more than one state. They will find some. People move, register in another state, and don't bother to tell the other state they are no longer there. They will stay on the old state's voter rolls for several elections until they are removed for inactivity. Also some students are registered at their parent's house in one state and registered where they are going to school in another state. In these cases are you going to find a few who vote twice? Yes, but not many. It is too much trouble and people are lazy. It is a job to get them to vote once let alone twice. I don't believe it affects our elections in any significant way.
Where I live in Chicago there are quite a few "kids" who have moved away from their parents and live in Indiana only a few miles away. They come back to the old neighborhood and vote in the mayoral and alderman elections. People know it goes on but nobody challenges it because it is going on with both sides (D vs D) not D vs R since elections in Chicago are D vs D.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,940 posts)you don't actually vote in more than one state. I've never heard of anybody un-registering when they moved to another state. But this database could be used to take people off the voter rolls just for being registered in more than one state.
Lord_at_War
(61 posts)I had just moved into my new condo, but I had an old electric bill from my former apartment- I live in a state that requires ID- I did it just to prove to myself it was possible.
Horse with no Name
(33,958 posts)To render your vote invalid.
brush
(53,962 posts)Latino and Asian-American sounding names, people most likely to vote Democratic.
If the computer turned up a Juan A. Romero and a Juan G. Romero, both would be purged from the voter rolls and could not vote as they were alleged to be guilty of vote fraud. All bullshit of course.
This was actually done and contributed to trump's win. That is what they are up to.
Now they want party affiliation info as well.
With that they can purge all similar sounding Democratic names. They don't have limit it to POC sounding names likely to vote Dem.
They will know who the Democratic voters with similar names are and will target them for purging.
The request is pure, repug evil to keep themselves in power.
Gothmog
(145,784 posts)The first lawsuit http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lawsuit-slams-election-integrity-commission
“[T]he Commission had already committed two egregious security blunders,” EPIC said in a statement on its website. “(1) directing state election officials to send voter records to an unsecure web site and (2) proposing to publish partial SSNs that would enable identity theft and financial fraud.”
In its suit requesting a temporary injunction against the commission’s data collection activities, filed in the D.C. District Court, the group called the request for partial Social Security numbers “both without precedent and crazy.”
It also accused the commission of violating the E-Government Act of 2002, which requires a privacy impact assessment be completed and made available to the public before the collection of personal information by the federal government using information technology. No assessment was conducted before requesting voter data, the suit alleges.
The commission’s broad request for data combined with the lack of any privacy assessment could “cause irreparable harm to EPIC’s members,” the suit alleged.....
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly gave the defendants until 4:00 p.m. ET on Wednesday to respond to the suit.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,940 posts)I didn't know about the requirement privacy impact assessment but I'm not surprised that this sorry bunch of amateurs failed to follow the law. Since EPIC apparently represents identifiable people who would be harmed, they might have overcome the standing and justiciable controversies obstacles. I'll be watching this one - thanks for the link.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,940 posts)Gothmog
(145,784 posts)I will look this later
dalton99a
(81,666 posts)
malaise
(269,250 posts)10th Amendment
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)the states are protecting their voters
Response to nikibatts (Original post)
NCTraveler This message was self-deleted by its author.
Gothmog
(145,784 posts)Sorry for the all caps in the heading. The ACLU has filed a lawsuit https://www.aclu-nh.org/en/press-releases/aclu-nh-challenges-disclosure-statewide-voter-information
On Friday, June 30, 2017, Secretary Gardner agreed to produce to the recently-created Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (the “Commission”) statewide information concerning over 984,000 registered voters’ names, domicile and mailing addresses, and party affiliation, if any. This response ignored New Hampshire laws that place strict and binding requirements on how the State is to produce voter information. (See RSA 654:31).
“The legislature carefully designed strict restrictions on the sharing of voter information for good reason: to protect voter privacy,” stated Representative Neal Kurk (R-NH), a plaintiff in the lawsuit. “These protections would be rendered meaningless by the transfer of this data to the Commission, which has established no security protocols and intends to post everything it receives online.”
Representative Kurk was involved in the crafting of the relevant statutes under RSA 654:31, which limit the prospect of mass dissemination of this statewide voter information in order to ensure that statewide voter information is only used for political purposes, not for commercial gain. (RSA 654:31(VI) explicitly prohibits voter information from being used for commercial purposes.)
“The Secretary of State has no statutory authority to release a copy of the statewide public checklist to anyone other than a political party, political committee, or candidate for New Hampshire office,” stated Senator Bette Lasky (D-NH), another plaintiff in the case.
