Trump's 'Voter Fraud' Commission Is Disbanded
As my colleague Vann Newkirk II wrote in September    the commission  was âdogged by allegations that  its  true purpose is not eliminating voter fraud  but instigating voter suppression.â Critics of  the commission  pointed to the fact that  its  appointees included longtime advocates of restrictive voting laws  such as Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach   to argue that the panel merely existed to provide pretext for further voting restrictions.
The genesis of  the commission  was the presidentâs baseless claim that âmillionsâ of illegal votes had cost him the popular-vote victory in the 2016 election  when his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton won about three million more votes. Neither the commission nor the president ever turned up evidence supporting Trumpâs claim  but the panel became a source of controversy as civil-liberties and voting-rights groups accused the body of violating privacy protections and transparency obligations. The panel faced a number of lawsuits from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union  the Brennan Center  the Electronic Privacy Information Center   and even a Democratic member of  the commission itself  .
Civil-rights groups celebrated the end of  the commission . Dale Ho of the ACLU voting rights project called the panel âa sham from the start.â Vanita Gupta  formerly the head of the Obama-era civil-rights division and head of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights  said  the commission  was a political ploy to provide cover for the presidentâs wild and unfounded claims of mass voter fraud  and to lay the foundation to purge eligible voters from the rolls.â Kristen Clarke  head of the Lawyerâs Committee for Civil Rights  one of the groups that sued  the commission   said the panel was âlaunched with the singular purpose of laying the groundwork to promote voter suppression policies on a national scale â adding that its disbanding was âa victory for those who are concerned about ensuring access to the ballot box.â
Rick Hasen  an election law expert and law professor at University of California Irvine  wrote that  the commissionâs  demise was due in part to âthe light of publicity and the intense scrutiny the press and many of us gave  the Commission . If they were going to provide a predicate for voter suppression  they were not going to be able to do it without a fight.â
There are lingering questions even now that  the commission  is disbanded. For one  while many states resisted sending their votersâ personal information to  the commission   others did  raising the question of what happens to the data that was collected.
â The commission  may no longer exist  but what happened to the information?â asked Sherrilyn Ifill  head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund  one of the groups that sued  the commission . âThat information should be removed or erased  it should not exist in the servers of commission members and officials in the White House.â
Trumpâs statement also says that he âasked the Department of Homeland Security to review these issues and determine next courses of action.â
As my colleague Vann Newkirk II wrote in September    the commission  was âdogged by allegations that  its  true purpose is not eliminating voter fraud  but instigating voter suppression.â Critics of  the commission  pointed to the fact that  its  appointees included longtime advocates of restrictive voting laws  such as Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach   to argue that the panel merely existed to provide pretext for further voting restrictions.
The genesis of  the commission  was the presidentâs baseless claim that âmillionsâ of illegal votes had cost him the popular-vote victory in the 2016 election  when his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton won about three million more votes. Neither the commission nor the president ever turned up evidence supporting  [TGT] âs claim  but the panel became a source of controversy as civil-liberties and voting-rights groups accused the body of violating privacy protections and transparency obligations. The panel faced a number of lawsuits from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union  the Brennan Center  the Electronic Privacy Information Center   and even a Democratic member of  the commission itself  .
Civil-rights groups celebrated the end of  the commission . Dale Ho of the ACLU voting rights project called the panel âa sham from the start.â Vanita Gupta  formerly the head of the Obama-era civil-rights division and head of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights  said  the commission  was a political ploy to provide cover for the presidentâs wild and unfounded claims of mass voter fraud  and to lay the foundation to purge eligible voters from the rolls.â Kristen Clarke  head of the Lawyerâs Committee for Civil Rights  one of the groups that sued  the commission   said the panel was âlaunched with the singular purpose of laying the groundwork to promote voter suppression policies on a national scale â adding that its disbanding was âa victory for those who are concerned about ensuring access to the ballot box.â
Rick Hasen  an election law expert and law professor at University of California Irvine  wrote that  the commissionâs  demise was due in part to âthe light of publicity and the intense scrutiny the press and many of us gave  the Commission . If they were going to provide a predicate for voter suppression  they were not going to be able to do it without a fight.â
There are lingering questions even now that  the commission  is disbanded. For one  while many states resisted sending their votersâ personal information to  the commission   others did  raising the question of what happens to the data that was collected.
â The commission  may no longer exist  but what happened to the information?â asked Sherrilyn Ifill  head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund  one of the groups that sued  the commission . âThat information should be removed or erased  it should not exist in the servers of commission members and officials in the White House.â
 [TGT] âs statement also says that he âasked the Department of Homeland Security to review these issues and determine next courses of action.â