24 States Refuse To Turn Over Voting Data Unstable President

[charwin95]

...Voting HISTORY is not "how they voted" as you stated. I can ask you if you voted last year there is nothing wrong with that question and there really isn't much reason for you not to answer. But when I ask whom you voted for then there is a problem. Voting history is NOT the same as how they voted. Voting history is a public record. I am not sure what the issue is other then the states grandstanding.

You and I have interpreted this differently.

I do believe that a fair number of State Attorneys General have interpreted the request in the very same way that I did.

Oh, and, by the way...

I you have my Registered Party Affiliation...

And you know whether or not I voted in Election A or B...

You can guess WHOM I voted for in Election A or B, now, can't you?

Plus-or-minus a few percentage points for error, when spread across an entire population.

Sorry.

No Sale.

Your voting history, whether you like it or not, is "public information". It can be purchased by candidates, campaigns and journalists.

Incorrect. You can request individually with a name but they will not give you that information of the entire states.
If its that simple why didn't this dude Kobach did it himself?

Yes they do. It is in the data provided to candidates and campaigns. In the data I provide I have two formats, five elections worth of voting history in a single file or all the voters history in two files.

So why did Kobach even bother asking the states?
Remember both red and blue states rejected Trump request. Some will comply only what is available in public but SSN and DL is not available to the public.

 

[busybee01]

...Voting HISTORY is not "how they voted" as you stated. I can ask you if you voted last year there is nothing wrong with that question and there really isn't much reason for you not to answer. But when I ask whom you voted for then there is a problem. Voting history is NOT the same as how they voted. Voting history is a public record. I am not sure what the issue is other then the states grandstanding.

You and I have interpreted this differently.

I do believe that a fair number of State Attorneys General have interpreted the request in the very same way that I did.

Oh, and, by the way...

I you have my Registered Party Affiliation...

And you know whether or not I voted in Election A or B...

You can guess WHOM I voted for in Election A or B, now, can't you?

Plus-or-minus a few percentage points for error, when spread across an entire population.

Sorry.

No Sale.

there is no way to tell how a person voted. For a Republican to win in most democrat areas then democrats have to cross vote.
Besides your party affiliation is public information.

Under the Privacy Act of 1974, it is illegal for the federal government to have a voter's affiliation. You are advocating for a commission on illegal voting to commit a illegal act. Maybe Mueller can investigate this as well.

If you know what primary a voter votes in, it can tell you something about who they identify with.

I think you may be mistaken or the person who told you that is mistaken.

The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) protects personal information held by the federal government by preventing unauthorized disclosures of such information. Individuals also have the right to review such information, request corrections, and be informed of any disclosures. The Freedom of Information Act facilitates these processes.

Personal Information

Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School, explained that the Federal Privacy Act prohibits the federal government from collecting records of individuals’ party affiliation or voting history. The government, according to the law, should “maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope or an authorized law enforcement activity.” First Amendment rights include voting. Kobach also hasn’t revealed how he intends to maintain or use citizens’ personal information — something the Federal Privacy Act established strict parameters for.

Trump’s voter fraud task force may have broken 2 federal laws

 

[Seawytch]

...Voting HISTORY is not "how they voted" as you stated. I can ask you if you voted last year there is nothing wrong with that question and there really isn't much reason for you not to answer. But when I ask whom you voted for then there is a problem. Voting history is NOT the same as how they voted. Voting history is a public record. I am not sure what the issue is other then the states grandstanding.

You and I have interpreted this differently.

I do believe that a fair number of State Attorneys General have interpreted the request in the very same way that I did.

Oh, and, by the way...

I you have my Registered Party Affiliation...

And you know whether or not I voted in Election A or B...

You can guess WHOM I voted for in Election A or B, now, can't you?

Plus-or-minus a few percentage points for error, when spread across an entire population.

Sorry.

No Sale.

Your voting history, whether you like it or not, is "public information". It can be purchased by candidates, campaigns and journalists.

Incorrect. You can request individually with a name but they will not give you that information of the entire states.
If its that simple why didn't this dude Kobach did it himself?

Yes they do. It is in the data provided to candidates and campaigns. In the data I provide I have two formats, five elections worth of voting history in a single file or all the voters history in two files.

So why did Kobach even bother asking the states?
Remember both red and blue states rejected Trump request. Some will comply only what is available in public but SSN and DL is not available to the public.

Because, as you said, they want data that is NOT publicly available.(DL, SSN)

 

[Freewill]

...Voting HISTORY is not "how they voted" as you stated. I can ask you if you voted last year there is nothing wrong with that question and there really isn't much reason for you not to answer. But when I ask whom you voted for then there is a problem. Voting history is NOT the same as how they voted. Voting history is a public record. I am not sure what the issue is other then the states grandstanding.

You and I have interpreted this differently.

I do believe that a fair number of State Attorneys General have interpreted the request in the very same way that I did.

Oh, and, by the way...

I you have my Registered Party Affiliation...

And you know whether or not I voted in Election A or B...

You can guess WHOM I voted for in Election A or B, now, can't you?

Plus-or-minus a few percentage points for error, when spread across an entire population.

Sorry.

No Sale.

there is no way to tell how a person voted. For a Republican to win in most democrat areas then democrats have to cross vote.
Besides your party affiliation is public information.

Under the Privacy Act of 1974, it is illegal for the federal government to have a voter's affiliation. You are advocating for a commission on illegal voting to commit a illegal act. Maybe Mueller can investigate this as well.

If you know what primary a voter votes in, it can tell you something about who they identify with.

I think you may be mistaken or the person who told you that is mistaken.

The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) protects personal information held by the federal government by preventing unauthorized disclosures of such information. Individuals also have the right to review such information, request corrections, and be informed of any disclosures. The Freedom of Information Act facilitates these processes.

Personal Information

Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School, explained that the Federal Privacy Act prohibits the federal government from collecting records of individuals’ party affiliation or voting history. The government, according to the law, should “maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope or an authorized law enforcement activity.” First Amendment rights include voting. Kobach also hasn’t revealed how he intends to maintain or use citizens’ personal information — something the Federal Privacy Act established strict parameters for.

Trump’s voter fraud task force may have broken 2 federal laws

sensitive information: private citizens’ names, addresses, birthdates, Social Security

numbers, party affiliations, voting histories, military status, felon status, and so on.

that is what is being asked for, which one is sensitive? Party affiliation is readily available in my state and I assume other states, along with voting history. Military status, readily available from the DOD. Felon Status, do an internet search of anyone's name and that information become available. IRS forms contain the other information. I am not sure what so on and so on means or even is.

So of all the data that the articles says was requested NONE of it is sensitive.

That said, if I were the states I would not send it either, because it is just another paper work burden. Have some internet geek shift out the information and they will have it in no time. BUT one would think that the state might want to have some say in the information.

Never the less, this whole voter fraud thing needs put to rest. There is no way a legal voter will lose their right to vote that is just alarmist BS. What I think will happen is they will find some but not a lot of fraud, one would think that would be a good thing.

But I will go back to my original premise, all the states know there is fraud and they certainly are not going to help expose it.

 

[Freewill]

You and I have interpreted this differently.

I do believe that a fair number of State Attorneys General have interpreted the request in the very same way that I did.

Oh, and, by the way...

I you have my Registered Party Affiliation...

And you know whether or not I voted in Election A or B...

You can guess WHOM I voted for in Election A or B, now, can't you?

Plus-or-minus a few percentage points for error, when spread across an entire population.

Sorry.

No Sale.

Your voting history, whether you like it or not, is "public information". It can be purchased by candidates, campaigns and journalists.

Incorrect. You can request individually with a name but they will not give you that information of the entire states.
If its that simple why didn't this dude Kobach did it himself?

Yes they do. It is in the data provided to candidates and campaigns. In the data I provide I have two formats, five elections worth of voting history in a single file or all the voters history in two files.

So why did Kobach even bother asking the states?
Remember both red and blue states rejected Trump request. Some will comply only what is available in public but SSN and DL is not available to the public.

Because, as you said, they want data that is NOT publicly available.(DL, SSN)

But SSNs are already available to the federal government. Unfortunately our SSN have become the only way of identifying people.

 

[dblack]

Your voting history, whether you like it or not, is "public information". It can be purchased by candidates, campaigns and journalists.

Incorrect. You can request individually with a name but they will not give you that information of the entire states.
If its that simple why didn't this dude Kobach did it himself?

Yes they do. It is in the data provided to candidates and campaigns. In the data I provide I have two formats, five elections worth of voting history in a single file or all the voters history in two files.

So why did Kobach even bother asking the states?
Remember both red and blue states rejected Trump request. Some will comply only what is available in public but SSN and DL is not available to the public.

Because, as you said, they want data that is NOT publicly available.(DL, SSN)

But SSNs are already available to the federal government. Unfortunately our SSN have become the only way of identifying people.

Again, this has nothing to do with individual voters. Trump is looking to reign in local leaders who defy him. Look for every "sanctuary city" to get slapped with nuisance lawsuits over voter fraud.

 

[Kondor3]

...But SSNs are already available to the federal government...

Correct.

However, fortunately, insofar as I am aware, SSNs are not cross-matched to Political Affiliation or Voting History within any Federally-controlled nationwide database.

That cross-matching is the crux of the objection.

...Unfortunately our SSN have become the only way of identifying people.

Exact-A-Mundo... very few people trust the Trump Administration with SSNs cross-matched to Political Affiliation or Voting History.

 

[Freewill]

...But SSNs are already available to the federal government...

Correct.

However, fortunately, insofar as I am aware, SSNs are not cross-matched to Political Affiliation or Voting History within any Federally-controlled nationwide database.

That cross-matching is the crux of the objection.

...Unfortunately our SSN have become the only way of identifying people.

Exact-A-Mundo... very few people trust the Trump Administration with SSNs cross-matched to Political Affiliation or Voting History.

And exactly what is their fear?

 

[Freewill]

Incorrect. You can request individually with a name but they will not give you that information of the entire states.
If its that simple why didn't this dude Kobach did it himself?

Yes they do. It is in the data provided to candidates and campaigns. In the data I provide I have two formats, five elections worth of voting history in a single file or all the voters history in two files.

So why did Kobach even bother asking the states?
Remember both red and blue states rejected Trump request. Some will comply only what is available in public but SSN and DL is not available to the public.

Because, as you said, they want data that is NOT publicly available.(DL, SSN)

But SSNs are already available to the federal government. Unfortunately our SSN have become the only way of identifying people.

Again, this has nothing to do with individual voters. Trump is looking to reign in local leaders who defy him. Look for every "sanctuary city" to get slapped with nuisance lawsuits over voter fraud.

Holy crap the left wing is paranoid to the point of delusion. As pointed out all the infromation request is public information is some form. So if Trump is so dialbolic then he could secretly have the information made available.

Trump isn't in this for the long haul. Maybe run in 2020 but that about it. There is no reason for him to go to such lengths to destroy his enemies they are pretty much doing it for him.

But he did promise to look into voter fraud, which is exactly what he is actually doing.

 

[Faun]

...But SSNs are already available to the federal government...

Correct.

However, fortunately, insofar as I am aware, SSNs are not cross-matched to Political Affiliation or Voting History within any Federally-controlled nationwide database.

That cross-matching is the crux of the objection.

...Unfortunately our SSN have become the only way of identifying people.

Exact-A-Mundo... very few people trust the Trump Administration with SSNs cross-matched to Political Affiliation or Voting History.

And exactly what is their fear?

What did the German people have to fear when Nazi's were collecting data on people?

 

[Seawytch]

I've already proposed the solution. Instead of states giving Fed's the data, the Fed's can parse out SS data to the states and then allow local registrars to do the comparisons. There is information contained in the local records that is simply not available in a data file.

 

[dblack]

Yes they do. It is in the data provided to candidates and campaigns. In the data I provide I have two formats, five elections worth of voting history in a single file or all the voters history in two files.

So why did Kobach even bother asking the states?
Remember both red and blue states rejected Trump request. Some will comply only what is available in public but SSN and DL is not available to the public.

Because, as you said, they want data that is NOT publicly available.(DL, SSN)

But SSNs are already available to the federal government. Unfortunately our SSN have become the only way of identifying people.

Again, this has nothing to do with individual voters. Trump is looking to reign in local leaders who defy him. Look for every "sanctuary city" to get slapped with nuisance lawsuits over voter fraud.

Holy crap the left wing is paranoid to the point of delusion. As pointed out all the infromation request is public information is some form. So if Trump is so dialbolic then he could secretly have the information made available

Making a public 'display' over gathering the information is the point. As I said, he's building a case. The fact that so many states are resisting plays right into his intent - it suggests they have something to hide.

Trump isn't in this for the long haul. Maybe run in 2020 but that about it. There is no reason for him to go to such lengths to destroy his enemies they are pretty much doing it for him.

It's well established that Trump is petulant and vindictive and very fixated on 'loyalty'.

But he did promise to look into voter fraud, which is exactly what he is actually doing.

Nothing to see here, move along.

 

[Kondor3]

...But SSNs are already available to the federal government...

Correct.

However, fortunately, insofar as I am aware, SSNs are not cross-matched to Political Affiliation or Voting History within any Federally-controlled nationwide database.

That cross-matching is the crux of the objection.

...Unfortunately our SSN have become the only way of identifying people.

Exact-A-Mundo... very few people trust the Trump Administration with SSNs cross-matched to Political Affiliation or Voting History.

And exactly what is their fear?

Doesn't matter... such fears are myriad and diverse... the point is, they don't want it in UN-trustworthy hands, one less thing to worry about.

 

[Flopper]

...That tells me that a lot of people want to suppress minority voting.

Perhaps.

Within a given locale...

When welfare recipient numbers reach a point which they either outnumber taxpayers or hit that Magic Ratio where welfare cannot be sustained by local contributions...

You've gotta do something to cull the herd, and keep the riff-raff from voting themselves more bennies...

Sounds damned harsh...

But it's also damned honest - and realistic - the way it's always been, on the macro level, and the way it must be, to avoid creation of a Dolist (on the dole) State...

The trick is, to keep the Shell Game going, so's that the Welfare Folk don't realize what's going on, or, at least, prevents them from confirming it...

That's why the Good Lord invented Spin-Doctoring and Gerrymandering...

Oh, and... Plausible Deniability... in this context ("No, no suppression at-work here, just fraud-audits using personal data")... yeah... that's the ticket...

In a nation that claims to have fair democratic elections, you really can't "cull the herd" of those that have beliefs different from yours and still claim your elections are the voice of the people. It is far better that the country fall into economic chaos as would eventually result from uncontrolled overspending than to resort to sham elections where only the "elite" are allow to vote.

We have a democratic republic in which voters select representatives to run the government and make our laws. These people answer to voters but voters are a fickle bunch that vote for many different reasons. People on welfare do not necessary vote for the person that promises more welfare because there are many different issues and there are many different forms of government support. Stereotyping a person receiving government support is likely to lead to the wrong conclusions.

 

[deanrd]

Twenty-four states have defied Trump’s request for sensitive voter information data, as they are refusing to turn over personal information to the unstable president.

Ari Berman of The Nation has the updated listed:


Follow
Ari Berman

✔@AriBerman
24 states won't provide voter data to Kobach: AZ, CA, CT, IN, KY, MA, MN, MS, NC, NM, ND, NV, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SD, TN, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI

6:05 PM - 30 Jun 2017

• 
  
• 
  1,1881,188 Retweets
  
• 
  2,4582,458 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy




The Secretary of State in Mississippi told Trump to go jump in the Gulf of Mexico. The home state of the man leading Trump’s voter suppression charge, Kansas Sec. of State Kris Kobach turned down his request for voter data.

The panel which was born out of Trump’s false belief that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote because of people voting illegally has turned into another black eye and a complete fiasco for this White House.

The smart thing to do would be for the White House to quietly announce over the holiday weekend that they are putting the commission on hold for the time being, and then never speak of it again. Since this is the Trump administration, they will probably attack the states that refuse to turn over the voter data, and claim that since Trump is president, he can do whatever he wants.

It’s ironic that just days before America’s Independence Day holiday, the states are celebrating their independence by defying a request from a president who is becoming more like King George III with each passing day of his presidency.


24 States Have Defied Trump And Are Refusing His Request For Voter Information

And if they don't turn it over, the orange assclown is going to do what?

24 States Refuse To Turn Over Voting Data Unstable President

The last I heard, it was 44.

 

[Flopper]

...Voting HISTORY is not "how they voted" as you stated. I can ask you if you voted last year there is nothing wrong with that question and there really isn't much reason for you not to answer. But when I ask whom you voted for then there is a problem. Voting history is NOT the same as how they voted. Voting history is a public record. I am not sure what the issue is other then the states grandstanding.

You and I have interpreted this differently.

I do believe that a fair number of State Attorneys General have interpreted the request in the very same way that I did.

Oh, and, by the way...

I you have my Registered Party Affiliation...

And you know whether or not I voted in Election A or B...

You can guess WHOM I voted for in Election A or B, now, can't you?

Plus-or-minus a few percentage points for error, when spread across an entire population.

Sorry.

No Sale.

Your voting history, whether you like it or not, is "public information". It can be purchased by candidates, campaigns and journalists.

Incorrect. You can request individually with a name but they will not give you that information of the entire states.
If its that simple why didn't this dude Kobach did it himself?

Yes they do. It is in the data provided to candidates and campaigns. In the data I provide I have two formats, five elections worth of voting history in a single file or all the voters history in two files.

So why did Kobach even bother asking the states?
Remember both red and blue states rejected Trump request. Some will comply only what is available in public but SSN and DL is not available to the public.

Kobach has been fighting to overturn the National Voter Registration Act and is a supporter of tightening both registration requirements and voting requirements. He has also been an out spoken critic of open registration. Regardless of the data he will be able construct a report that indicates that vast numbers of people may be illegally voting which will be translated by the media into voter fraud when in fact the data only shows it is possible. That possibility in most cases only exists because of the way the data elements and the files are constructed.

When people move from county to county or state to state, they will not be removed from their old location for years. Thus a case can be made for illegally voting. A person dies but remains on the voter rolls for a number of years. A person with the same name, similar name or even the same birth date is voting in elections. The assumption is of course voter fraud. Then there are people who vote by mail and then vote again at polls and their vote is only registered once but records show they voted twice. Then there are provisional ballots in which voters are allowed to vote when there are discrepancies between voter identification and voter registration information. There are also cases where voters appear on the files multiple times because of name changes. There are many, many anomalies that can't be resolved by just looking at voting registration records and federal data bases. It is necessary that the procedures and other files be examined which would be a very long and costly investigation, an investigation that has been made already in some states and will not be made by this commission.

 

[Freewill]

...But SSNs are already available to the federal government...

Correct.

However, fortunately, insofar as I am aware, SSNs are not cross-matched to Political Affiliation or Voting History within any Federally-controlled nationwide database.

That cross-matching is the crux of the objection.

...Unfortunately our SSN have become the only way of identifying people.

Exact-A-Mundo... very few people trust the Trump Administration with SSNs cross-matched to Political Affiliation or Voting History.

And exactly what is their fear?

Doesn't matter... such fears are myriad and diverse... the point is, they don't want it in UN-trustworthy hands, one less thing to worry about.

I am thinking they already have one less thing to worry about. Why all the worry about information that is publicly available is anyone's guess.

 

[busybee01]

You and I have interpreted this differently.

I do believe that a fair number of State Attorneys General have interpreted the request in the very same way that I did.

Oh, and, by the way...

I you have my Registered Party Affiliation...

And you know whether or not I voted in Election A or B...

You can guess WHOM I voted for in Election A or B, now, can't you?

Plus-or-minus a few percentage points for error, when spread across an entire population.

Sorry.

No Sale.

there is no way to tell how a person voted. For a Republican to win in most democrat areas then democrats have to cross vote.
Besides your party affiliation is public information.

Under the Privacy Act of 1974, it is illegal for the federal government to have a voter's affiliation. You are advocating for a commission on illegal voting to commit a illegal act. Maybe Mueller can investigate this as well.

If you know what primary a voter votes in, it can tell you something about who they identify with.

I think you may be mistaken or the person who told you that is mistaken.

The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) protects personal information held by the federal government by preventing unauthorized disclosures of such information. Individuals also have the right to review such information, request corrections, and be informed of any disclosures. The Freedom of Information Act facilitates these processes.

Personal Information

Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School, explained that the Federal Privacy Act prohibits the federal government from collecting records of individuals’ party affiliation or voting history. The government, according to the law, should “maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope or an authorized law enforcement activity.” First Amendment rights include voting. Kobach also hasn’t revealed how he intends to maintain or use citizens’ personal information — something the Federal Privacy Act established strict parameters for.

Trump’s voter fraud task force may have broken 2 federal laws

sensitive information: private citizens’ names, addresses, birthdates, Social Security

numbers, party affiliations, voting histories, military status, felon status, and so on.

that is what is being asked for, which one is sensitive? Party affiliation is readily available in my state and I assume other states, along with voting history. Military status, readily available from the DOD. Felon Status, do an internet search of anyone's name and that information become available. IRS forms contain the other information. I am not sure what so on and so on means or even is.

So of all the data that the articles says was requested NONE of it is sensitive.

That said, if I were the states I would not send it either, because it is just another paper work burden. Have some internet geek shift out the information and they will have it in no time. BUT one would think that the state might want to have some say in the information.

Never the less, this whole voter fraud thing needs put to rest. There is no way a legal voter will lose their right to vote that is just alarmist BS. What I think will happen is they will find some but not a lot of fraud, one would think that would be a good thing.

But I will go back to my original premise, all the states know there is fraud and they certainly are not going to help expose it.

You are so full of bullshit. The states know that there is no massive fraud on the scale Trump is alleging and even Republicans know this and they are refusing to play into Trump's fantasies. It has been put to rest as there is no proof.

All of this information is sensitive. The more information you have, the more identity theft is possible. If you think social security numbers are not sensitive then you are a moron. If the commission accepts party affiliation then they are breaking the law.

 

[Kondor3]

...In a nation that claims to have fair democratic elections, you really can't "cull the herd" of those that have beliefs different from yours and still claim your elections are the voice of the people...

Nothing to do with 'beliefs'... merely working towards a functional disenfranchisement of the Dolists (those "on-the-dole" - sucking off the welfare teat).

.. It is far better that the country fall into economic chaos as would eventually result from uncontrolled overspending than to resort to sham elections where only the "elite" are allow to vote....

1. disagree - I cannot think of a circumstance in which it would be better to allow the country to fall into economic chaos

2. they are not working for the elites - they are working against the Dolists - so that they do not have the power to elect Dole-perpetuating candidates

...We have a democratic republic in which voters select representatives to run the government and make our laws...

We were a democratic republic when there were property qualifications for voting - that's what they're working towards restoring, in a modern adaptation of the concept.

...These people answer to voters but voters are a fickle bunch that vote for many different reasons...

Yep... true for any bloc of voters... but doubly or triply true for those who have no property-stake and who are net consumers-of rather than contributors-to the state.

...People on welfare do not necessary vote for the person that promises more welfare...

True.

Not necessarily.

But so close to that it's almost a certainty.

...because there are many different issues and there are many different forms of government support...

By welfare, let's confine ourselves to SNAP, TANF, LIHEAP and any other program designed to help able-bodied people of working age who are not self-sufficient.

...Stereotyping a person receiving government support is likely to lead to the wrong conclusions.

Disagree.

There are, indeed, dangers to be addressed when stereotyping.

However, many stereotypes have a demonstrable and historical basis in fact, and can be utilized, so long as one is on-guard against the risk of substantive inaccuracy.

Within the framework of SNAP, TANF, LIHEAP and the like... with respect to stereotyping of voter behaviors... the margin of error is so small that it's safe to stereotype.

And, in cases wherein 'race' (the poor White vote vs. the poor Black vote, etc.) is a factor, one can safely stereotype very broadly within those very large sub-groupings.

 

[Freewill]

there is no way to tell how a person voted. For a Republican to win in most democrat areas then democrats have to cross vote.
Besides your party affiliation is public information.

Under the Privacy Act of 1974, it is illegal for the federal government to have a voter's affiliation. You are advocating for a commission on illegal voting to commit a illegal act. Maybe Mueller can investigate this as well.

If you know what primary a voter votes in, it can tell you something about who they identify with.

I think you may be mistaken or the person who told you that is mistaken.

The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) protects personal information held by the federal government by preventing unauthorized disclosures of such information. Individuals also have the right to review such information, request corrections, and be informed of any disclosures. The Freedom of Information Act facilitates these processes.

Personal Information

Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School, explained that the Federal Privacy Act prohibits the federal government from collecting records of individuals’ party affiliation or voting history. The government, according to the law, should “maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope or an authorized law enforcement activity.” First Amendment rights include voting. Kobach also hasn’t revealed how he intends to maintain or use citizens’ personal information — something the Federal Privacy Act established strict parameters for.

Trump’s voter fraud task force may have broken 2 federal laws

sensitive information: private citizens’ names, addresses, birthdates, Social Security

numbers, party affiliations, voting histories, military status, felon status, and so on.

that is what is being asked for, which one is sensitive? Party affiliation is readily available in my state and I assume other states, along with voting history. Military status, readily available from the DOD. Felon Status, do an internet search of anyone's name and that information become available. IRS forms contain the other information. I am not sure what so on and so on means or even is.

So of all the data that the articles says was requested NONE of it is sensitive.

That said, if I were the states I would not send it either, because it is just another paper work burden. Have some internet geek shift out the information and they will have it in no time. BUT one would think that the state might want to have some say in the information.

Never the less, this whole voter fraud thing needs put to rest. There is no way a legal voter will lose their right to vote that is just alarmist BS. What I think will happen is they will find some but not a lot of fraud, one would think that would be a good thing.

But I will go back to my original premise, all the states know there is fraud and they certainly are not going to help expose it.

You are so full of bullshit. The states know that there is no massive fraud on the scale Trump is alleging and even Republicans know this and they are refusing to play into Trump's fantasies. It has been put to rest as there is no proof.

All of this information is sensitive. The more information you have, the more identity theft is possible. If you think social security numbers are not sensitive then you are a moron. If the commission accepts party affiliation then they are breaking the law.

And you know this how?

As I said, I don't think they will find massive fraud but at least we might get a definitive answer. You should look forward to shutting up those who say there is fraud.

What piece of information do you think that if I really wanted I couldn't get? And if your or I can get it then you damn well know that the government can get it. If anything the committee should be accused of being lazy and wanting the information handed to them. As I also said, if I were the states I wouldn't go through the paper work to comply unless some law was passed to say I must.

But all this whining about this is just Trump trying to get a list of people to march off to the detention camps is just childish BS.