Message From: Christian Adams [a@electionlawcenter.com] Sent: 11/20/2017 10:20:27 PM To: adams@publicinterestlegal.org Subject: Washington Examiner on PACEI and Commissioner member untruths One Democrat on Trump's electoral integrity commission is misleading the public with complaints about its work by Hans von Spakovskv and J. Christian Adams Nov 20, 2017, 5:00 PM We are saddened that Maine Secretary of State Matt Dunlap, our colleague on the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, has filed a widely-reported complaint against the commission. Even more dismaying, his complaint and statements to the press contain inaccurate information and outright falsehoods. It seems intended to inhibit, if not outright sabotage, the commission?s valuable work of examining our voter registration and election system to recommend improvements that will ensure electoral integrity. In the suit, Dunlap states that he has been ?blocked from receiving Commission documents? and hasn?t been allowed ?substantive participation.? This is simply untrue. He also claims that a majority of the commission members ?have a history of working to restrict access to the ballot box.? This statement is false, defamatory, and hardly conducive to promoting a productive, bipartisan inquiry into an important topic. When one of the above authors predicted in a private email in February that some Democrats named to the commission might not be inclined to ?do anything other than obstruct any investigation of voter fraud,? that prediction missed the mark. Had that email said ?if you name a Democrat, they will probably end up suing the Commission, leaking to the media, and lying about its activities in court filings,? the wailing and gnashing of teeth from election fraud deniers and the media would have been even worse. But that prediction would have been accurate. Dunlap?s choice of legal counsel in this case is also telling. The ?American Oversight? advocacy organization bills itself as a shield against the Trump administration?s ?culture of impunity? and founded only months after Trump was sworn into of?ce. The group boasts old hands from the Clinton legal team and bears scars from Whitewater, Lewinsky, and Email-gate, National Review notes. Here are a few of the falsehoods in Dunlap?s complaint. On page 12, Dunlap claims he didn?t receive some of the testimony and other documents from the first meeting of the commission on July 19 at the White House prior to the meeting. But on July 13, all of the commissioners received an email from the Of?ce of the Vice President giving us the web address of the commission?s page at the White House, which is accessible publicly m, including all of the testimony and other documents submitted to the commission. Dunlap portrays the fact that several commissioners submitted documents at the meeting itself as some kind of conspiratorial, nefarious action. As explained here, this claim is preposterous. One of the authors submitted a printed copy of The Heritage Foundation?s election fraud database; this database is online and has been online for almost two years so any member of the public can access it. That a secretary of state was unaware of this expansive catalog of documented election fraud only makes it worse. Contrary to Dunlap?s in?ammatory suppositions, which he has trumpeted to the press, facts are not preordained ?conclusions.? It seems Dunlap is also unhappy about the fact that he apparently did not receive a submission by Christy McCormick, a commissioner on the US. Election Assistance Commission, ahead of time. But what McCormick submitted was simply the 2016 election report of the EAC, that had previously been submitted to Congress, and which was also a public document easily available on the website. Perhaps what is really upsetting Dunlap is the fact that the EAC report shows that the voter registration rate in Maine is 101.6 percent of the citizen voting age population which means that Maine has more people registered to vote than are, in fact, eligible to vote. This fact certainly casts doubt on how thoroughly he is maintaining the accuracy of Maine?s voter rolls. It seems Dunlap was also upset that he wasn?t provided with a copy of a law review article that Commissioner Ken Blackwell submitted at the July 19 meeting. He neglects to mention, however, that this article has been available online for any and all to see since 2009. Dunlap, by the way, made an opening statement at the July 19 meeting he did not submit it to the commission ahead of time. Dunlap also complains about the second meeting of the commission on Sept. 12 in New Hampshire. He claims he had no input into the agenda and received no ?substantive information about the meeting? including ?prepared testimony.? We would note, however, that if Dunlap failed to provide input into the agenda for this meeting, that is entirely his own fault. At the first commission meeting on July 19, Dunlap voted to adopt the by-laws of the commission, which clearly provide, in Section IV, Part (C), that the chair (or the vice chair at the chair?s direction) of the commission sets the agenda for each meeting but that ?items for the agenda may be submitted to the Chair by any Member.? Moreover, an updated agenda was emailed to all of the commissioners a week before the meeting. The only document Dunlap sent to the commission was a copy of an article about a misleading ?yer sent to college students in Maine and that document was immediately posted on the commission? White House webpage m. At the first meeting on July 19, many commissioners spoke constructively about the issues they wanted covered by the commission. New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, for example, expressed his interest in what effect voter con?dence in the integrity of the election process may have on voter turnout. Dunlap expressed an interest in issues involving the chain of custody and the counting of ballots as well as ?the need for a better understanding of our cybersecurity needs.? The turnout/voter confidence issue was covered at the Sept. 12 meeting by three witnesses. The cybersecurity issue that Dunlap raised at the ?rst meeting was also covered by three different witnesses, and the dangers posed by cyberattacks on ballot counting was covered by Andrew Appell, a computer scientist from Princeton University. Dunlap seems to have overlooked a Sept. 8 email that was sent to all members of the commission by the Of?ce of the Vice President providing the materials for the Sept. 12 meeting. Although Dunlap claims that he did not have access to these materials prior to the Sept. 12 meeting, all of the materials, including the written testimony of the witnesses for the Sept. 12 meeting, was also available on the commission?s White House webpage prior to the meeting. The complaint ?led by Dunlap reads more like a press release than a lawsuit. It is the kind of document one would expect from an election fraud-denier who doesn?t want anyone to know the truth about vulnerabilities in our system, not a document one would expect from a member of a bipartisan commission charged with investigating those vulnerabilities in good faith and making recommendations to address and mitigate those vulnerabilities. Another false claim made by Dunlap relates to the shocking arrest of a longtime Justice Department employee who was detailed to the Of?ce of the Vice President to provide staf?ng for the commission. Ronald Williams, a career DOJ employee who had worked in both the Civil Rights and Criminal Division, was arrested at the beginning of October for allegedly possessing child pornography. In an interview with ProPublica on Oct. 17 and with New Hampshire NPR on Nov. 9, Dunlap claimed he had never been told about the hiring of Williams or any other staff member besides Andrew Kossack, a counsel in the Of?ce of the Vice President assigned to the commission as the ?Designated Federal Of?cer.? This is a bizarre claim: We were sitting in a room on July 19 when Williams was introduced to all of the commissioners, including Dunlap. Williams sat within eight feet of Dunlap in the vice president?s of?ce while we undertook hours of ethics training. There is even a photograph of Williams sitting right behind Dunlap at the July 19 public meeting. Apparently, Ron Williams was the Invisible Man to Dunlap. As for Dunlap?s claim that the public is being excluded from the commission, members of the public can submit comments, information, and documents to the commission that they believe are relevant to what we are examining. The Commission webpage has posted all of the comments that have been submitted. A wide range of interest groups from academics, to faux-media outlets, to partisans, to foundations and the activist groups they fund appear intent on trying to sabotage the work of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. The only plausible reason for this is that they don?t want the public to learn more about vulnerabilities in our elections that allow election fraud and other administrative errors and mistakes to occur. Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of Americans are properly concerned over the election process and reject the premise that election fraud is a myth. That isn?t a preordained conclusion; that?s a fact. And that? 3 why we will continue, relentlessly, to try to get to the bottom of how we can improve the security and integrity of our election system. Hans von Spakovsky (@HvonSgakovs?) is a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. J. Christian Adams @ElectionLawC tr) is the president and general counsel of the Public Interest Legal Foundation. Both are members of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Message From: von Spakovsky, Hans Sent: 11/20/2017 10:17:51 PM Subject: One Democrat on Trump's electoral integrity commission is misleading the public with complaints about its work OPINION One Democrat on Trump's electoral integrity commission is misleading the public with complaints about its work by Hans von Spakovskv and J. Christian Adams Nov 20, 2017, 5:00 PM PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COM MISSION ELECTION INTEGRITY A Wide range of interest groups appear intent on trying to sabotage the work of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik) Top of Form Bottom of Form We are saddened that Maine Secretary of State Matt Dunlap, our colleague on the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, has filed a widely?reported complaint against the commission. Even more dismaying, his complaint and statements to the press contain inaccurate information and outright falsehoods. It seems intended to inhibit, if not outright sabotage, the commission?s valuable work of examining our voter registration and election system to recommend improvements that will ensure electoral integrity. In the suit, Dunlap states that he has been "blocked from receiving Commission documents? and hasn?t been allowed ?substantive participation." This is simply untrue. He also claims that a majority of the commission members "have a history of working to restrict access to the ballot box." This statement is false, defamatory, and hardly conducive to promoting a productive, bipartisan inquiry into an important topic. When one of the above authors predicted in a private email in February that some Democrats named to the commission might not be inclined to "do anything other than obstruct any investigation of voter fraud,? that prediction missed the mark. Had that email said ?if you name a Democrat, they will probably end up suing the Commission, leaking to the media, and lying about its activities in court filings," the wailing and gnashing of teeth from election fraud deniers and the media would have been even worse. But that prediction would have been accurate. Dunlap's choice of legal counsel in this case is also telling. The ?American Oversight? advocacy organization bills itself as a shield against the Trump administration's ?culture of impunity? and founded only months after Trump was sworn into office. The group boasts old hands from the Clinton legal team and bears scars from Whitewater, Lewinsky, and Email?gate, National Review notes. Here are a few of the falsehoods in Dunlap?s complaint. On page 12, Dunlap claims he didn?t receive some of the testimony and other documents from the first meeting of the commission on July 19 at the White House prior to the meeting. But on July 13, all of the commissioners received an email from the Office of the Vice President giving us the web address of the commission's page at the White House, which is accessible publicly hei, including all of the testimony and other documents submitted to the commission. Dunlap portrays the fact that several commissioners submitted documents at the meeting itself as some kind of conspiratorial, nefarious action. As explained this claim is preposterous. One of the authors submitted a printed copy of The Heritage Foundation's election fraud database; this database is online and has been online for almost two years so any member of the public can access it. That a secretary of state was unaware of this expansive catalog of documented election fraud only makes it worse. Contrary to Dunlap's inflammatory suppositions, which he has trumpeted to the press, facts are not preordained "conclusions.? It seems Dunlap is also unhappy about the fact that he apparently did not receive a submission by Christy McCormick, a commissioner on the US. Election Assistance Commission, ahead of time. But what McCormick submitted was simply the 2016 election report of the EAC, that had previously been submitted to Congress, and which was also a public document easily available on the EAC's website. Perhaps what is really upsetting Dunlap is the fact that the EAC report shows that the voter registration rate in Maine is 101.6 percent of the citizen voting age population which means that Maine has more people registered to vote than are, in fact, eligible to vote. This fact certainly casts doubt on how thoroughly he is maintaining the accuracy of Maine's voter rolls. It seems Dunlap was also upset that he wasn?t provided with a copy of a law review article that Commissioner Ken Blackwell submitted at the July 19 meeting. He neglects to mention, however, that this article has been available online for any and all to see since 2009. Dunlap, by the way, made an opening statement at the July 19 meeting he did not submit it to the commission ahead of time. Dunlap also complains about the second meeting of the commission on Sept. 12 in New Hampshire. He claims he had no input into the agenda and received no ?substantive information about the meeting" including "prepared testimony.? We would note, however, that if Dunlap failed to provide input into the agenda for this meeting, that is entirely his own fault. At the first commission meeting on July 19, Dunlap voted to adopt the by?laws of the commission, which clearly provide, in Section IV, Part (C), that the chair (or the vice chair at the chair?s direction) of the commission sets the agenda for each meeting but that ?items for the agenda may be submitted to the Chair by any Member." Moreover, an updated agenda was emailed to all of the commissioners a week before the meeting. The only document Dunlap sent to the commission was a copy of an article about a misleading flyer sent to college students in Maine and that document was immediately posted on the commission's White House webpage hei. At the first meeting on July 19, many commissioners spoke constructively about the issues they wanted covered by the commission. New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, for example, expressed his interest in what effect voter confidence in the integrity of the election process may have on voter turnout. Dunlap expressed an interest in issues involving the chain of custody and the counting of ballots as well as ?the need for a better understanding of our cybersecurity needs." The turnout/voter confidence issue was covered at the Sept. 12 meeting by three witnesses. The cybersecurity issue that Dunlap raised at the first meeting was also covered by three different witnesses, and the dangers posed by cyberattacks on ballot counting was covered by Andrew Appell, a computer scientist from Princeton University. Dunlap seems to have overlooked a Sept. 8 email that was sent to all members of the commission by the Office of the Vice President providing the materials for the Sept. 12 meeting. Although Dunlap claims that he did not have access to these materials prior to the Sept. 12 meeting, all of the materials, including the written testimony of the witnesses for the Sept. 12 meeting, was also available on the commission's White House webpage prior to the meeting. The complaint filed by Dunlap reads more like a press release than a lawsuit. It is the kind of document one would expect from an election fraud?denier who doesn?t want anyone to know the truth about vulnerabilities in our system, not a document one would expect from a member of a bipartisan commission charged with investigating those vulnerabilities in good faith and making recommendations to address and mitigate those vulnerabilities. Another false claim made by Dunlap relates to the shocking arrest of a longtime Justice Department employee who was detailed to the Office of the Vice President to provide staffing for the commission. Ronald Williams, a career DOJ employee who had worked in both the Civil Rights and Criminal Division, was arrested at the beginning of October for allegedly possessing child pornography. In an interview with ProPublica on Oct. 17 and with New Hampshire NPR on Nov. 9, Dunlap claimed he had never been told about the hiring of Williams or any other staff member besides Andrew Kossack, a counsel in the Office of the Vice President assigned to the commission as the "Designated Federal Officer.? This is a bizarre claim: We were sitting in a room on July 19 when Williams was introduced to all of the commissioners, including Dunlap. ii. I i\ ?93 Dunlap, sitting third from right, at the July 19 meeting. Williams was introduced later at the same meeting. (AP) Williams sat within eight feet of Dunlap in the vice president?s office while we undertook hours of ethics training. There is even a photograph of Williams sitting right behind Dunlap at the July 19 public meeting. Apparently, Ron Williams was the Invisible Man to Dunlap. As for Dunlap?s claim that the public is being excluded from the commission, members of the public can submit comments, information, and documents to the commission that they believe are relevant to what we are examining. The Commission webpage has posted all of the comments that have been submitted. A wide range of interest groups from academics, to faux?media outlets, to partisans, to foundations and the activist groups they fund appear intent on trying to sabotage the work of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. The only plausible reason for this is that they don?t want the public to learn more about vulnerabilities in our elections that allow election fraud and other administrative errors and mistakes to occur. Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of Americans are properly concerned over the election process and reject the premise that election fraud is a myth. That isn?t a preordained conclusion; that?s a fact. And that's why we will continue, relentlessly, to try to get to the bottom of how we can improve the security and integrity of our election system. Hans von Spakovsky (@HvonSpakovsky) is a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. J. Christian Adams (@ElectionLaWCtr) is the president and general counsel of the Public Interest Legal Foundation. Both are members of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Hans von Spakovsky Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow Institute for Constitutional Government The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6207 heritageorg Message From: von Spakovsky, Hans Sent: 1/4/2018 4:36:58 PM Subject: Election Law Group - Statement on Dissolution of Advisory Commission on Election Integrity My statement on the dissolution of the Commission: While I am disappointed about the dissolution ofthe Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, I understand President Trump?s action. The ability of the Commission to research, review, and examine the integrity and security of the American election process was made almost impossible by the unprecedented and unjustified obstruction by many state election officials who defiantly refused to cooperate with the Commission. The Commission was also hampered by the almost dozen meritless lawsuits that were filed against the Commission by progressive advocacy groups that were solely intended to prevent its work and take up the time of the Commission?s staff with frivolous litigation. The American people understand how important it is that we have a secure system in which everyone who is eligible is able to vote and their vote is not diluted or stolen by fraudulent votes or administrative errors and mistakes by election officials. The obstacles and impediments used to hinder the work of the Commission is evidence that there are many politicians and activists who want to prevent the American people from finding out the truth. Hans von Spakovsky Senior Legal Fellow The Heritage Foundation Former member of President?s Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Hans von Spakovsky Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow Institute for Constitutional Government The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6207 heritageorg Message From: von Spakovsky, Hans Sent: 7/28/2017 6:15:35 PM Subject: New Report Exposes Thousands of Illegal Votes in 2016 Election .THE DAILY SIGNAL New Report Exposes Thousands of Illegal Votes in 2016 Election Hans von Spakovsky Ben Janacek July 28, 2017 A new bombshell study released by the Government Accountability Institute shows why President Donald Trump?s Advisory Commission on Election Integrity has such an important job ahead of it. The Institute concluded in its report that thousands of votes in the 2016 election were illegal duplicate votes from people who registered and voted in more than one state. The Government Accountability Institute, founded by Peter Schweizer, author of ?Clinton Cash,? seeks to ?investigate and expose crony capitalism, misuse of taxpayer monies, and other governmental corruption or malfeasance.? Over the last few months, the Institute sought to obtain ?public voter information? from every state in order to search for duplicate votes. This is the same type of information the president?s Election Integrity Commission has requested. With this report, we may have a clue as to why some states are resisting providing this data. The Government Accountability Institute was able to obtain voter registration and voter history data from only 21 states because while some states shared it freely, ?others impose exorbitant costs or refuse to comply with voter information requests.? These 21 states represent ?about 17 percent of all possible state-to-state comparison combinations.? The Institute compared the lists using an ?extremely conservative matching approach that sought only to identify two votes cast in the same legal name.? It found that 8,471 votes in 2016 were ?highly likely? duplicates. Extrapolating this to all 50 states would likely produce, with around 45,000 duplicate votes. The Institute obtained this level of con?dence by matching not only names and birthdays?which can be the same for different individuals?but also by contracting with companies, such as Virtual DB S, that have commercial databases to further cross-check these individuals using their Social Security Numbers and other information. According to the Government Accountability Institute?s experts, ?the probability of correctly matching two records with the same name, birthdate, and social security number is close to 100 percent.? In fact, ?using these match points will result in virtually zero false positives.? The probability of 45,000 illegal duplicate votes is the low end of the spectrum, and it does not even account for other types of fraud such as ineligible voting by noncitizens and felons and absentee ballot fraud. To put this number of fraudulent votes in perspective, Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire by fewer than 3,000 votes out of over 700,000 cast. Just this number of duplicate votes alone has the power to swing state results and, in turn, elections. Unfortunately, New Hampshire refused to turn over their data for this study. There have been other razor-tight elections in recent years. In 2000, the presidency was decided by 537 votes out of a total of 105 million cast. In 2008, Al Franken won his Minnesota Senate race by a mere 312 votes. He ended up being the deciding vote that gave this country Obamacare. Though the Institute did not look at the 2008 elections in this study, there is little doubt that the 2016 numbers show that duplicate voting and voter fraud are a real problem that can have serious consequential effects. The Government Accountability Institute also used the state of Rhode Island as a test case. Over 30 percent of all registered voters in Rhode Island have no Social Security or driver?s license number on ?le. While it is legal to register without providing this information, the Institute notes that ?con?rming the identities of some of these voters is impossible using only the data contained in the state?s voter registration system.? Without this ?uniquely identifying information there is no way to con?rm a voter?s identity or citizenship This shows the vulnerabilities that are ripe for any person or group wanting to take advantage of them. The Institute also found more than 15,000 voters registered at prohibited addresses ?such as post of?ce boxes, UPS stores, federal post of?ces, and public buildings.? In some cases, more than 100 voters ?were registered to the same UPS store locations.? They also found voters whose registered addresses were ?gas stations, vacant lots, abandoned mill buildings, basketball courts, parks, warehouses, and office buildings.? The Institute tried to bring some of these problems to the attention of Rhode Island election officials as part of their test case. They provided of?cials with a list of 225 voters who ?were registered using prohibited addresses.? But Rhode Island refused to do anything about the problem beyond sending a letter to the voters. If a voter did not respond, the state refused to take any further action. Instead, in an obvious attempt to deter the Government Accountability Institute, the state said that the Institute would have to file a ?voter challenge? and would be subject to a misdemeanor penalty if it filed a ?false challenge.? The fact that these election officials did not want to thoroughly investigate possible voter fraud illustrates one of the problems in this area: Too many election officials don?t want to know about these problems, and refuse to do anything when it is brought to their attention. The Government Accountability Institute points out that the quality of the voter registration data in some states is very poor, with missing and obviously incorrect information. The Institute found 45,880 votes cast by individuals whose dates of birth were more than 115 years before the election. Several hundred votes were cast by individuals whose registration birthdates ?indicated they were under 18 years old at the time of the election,? although some of these were through provisional ballots. All of this is just the latest evidence that we have serious, substantive problems in our voter registration system across the country and that voter fraud is, without a doubt, real. The Heritage Foundation has a database that is being constantly updated. It documents nearly 1,100 proven instances of voter fraud, including cases where elections were overturned because of proven fraud. This kind of work, which the Government Accountability Institute has done, will be invaluable to the Election Integrity Commission as it researches the registration and voting process and looks for ways to fix its vulnerabilities and security problems, enhance our democratic process, and make sure every eligible American votes and is not disenfranchised by illegal votes. Election integrity and public con?dence in the election process are fundamental to preserving our democratic republic. Disclosure: Hans von Spakovsky is a member of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity mentioned in this article. Hans von Spakovsky Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow Institute for Constitutional Government The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6207 heritageorg Message From: Christian Adams [adams@electionlawcenter.com] Sent: 8/31/2017 5:27:18 PM To: 'Christian Adams' [a@electionlawcenter.com] Subject: The Hill: Why I'm sticking with Trump's election commission OPINION Why I'm sticking with Trump's election commission By J. Christian Adams, contributor - 08/31/17 Getty Images After a few weeks of pre-packaged tweets designed to push me to quit the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, I?m reminded why the commission is so important and timely. You would think critics of the commission would relish the chance to prove once and for all the concerns about election integrity are overblown and that voter fraud is really a myth, as they assert. After all, if the commission comes up empty, their argument is strengthened, right? That would be a rational approach. But when it comes to attacks on the commission, rationality is in short supply. The big risk for the critics of the commission is how the public will react when they learn how weak and outmoded many of our core election components are. For example, when the commission initially requested voter data from the states, the primary reason the story went viral is that many Americans did not realize how much of their information was already a matter of public record. Those same voters probably didn?t know that when they claimed to be U.S. citizens on registration forms, nobody verified the answers. They probably didn't know that the primary method for ensuring records were current was whether mail bounced or was properly delivered by the United States Postal Service. The sad truth is that if someone wants to vote twice, they could probably register again by giving a middle initial instead of their complete name. That fraudster could rely on a swarm of well-?inded activist groups trying to stop efforts to clean that mess. I saw this outlandish argument in court recently when it was claimed ?nding multiple registrations under the same name, address and birthday was something only sophisticated experts could do. These groups work to preserve vulnerabilities on our elections when they assert, in court, that simple spreadsheet functions cannot detect duplicate registrations. The critics of the commission enjoy lucrative professional positions designed to preserve weaknesses in our electoral system. They spend millions to try to convince minorities that they may not be sophisticated enough to follow a voter ID law. They constantly argue that registration is too complicated, even though it can be done on a postcard. Try thinking of another government application as important as voter registration that fits on a single page. It doesn?t exist. By convincing you that voting in America is a complex business, the insular group of election ?experts? sees their in?uence grow. Not just anyone can become an expert, either. What matters most is if you are accepted by a small and ideologically-unbalanced clique. If you?re a secretary of state, county clerk or litigator with decades of voting rights cases, your credentials can still be questioned. The Guardian provides a comical example. If you?re a civic-minded good Samaritan trying to help your local community by ?nding ?aws in voter rolls, expect to be treated as though you are the second coming of Jim Crow. The small clique of left-of-center experts believes they are the chosen ones. Nobody should examine their issues without their input. That?s why they especially hate the president?s commission. Nobody asked them. Their downside worsens when you factor in Saul Alinsky?s third rule: ?Wherever possible, go outside the expertise? of your adversary. These experts abhor the empirical debate, just like the practical one. The commission decided at the ?rst meeting to seek data and facts about our elections. No opposition group not the Brennan Center, not Pew Research Center has ever undertaken a project this thorough. Indeed, Brennan Center studies ?debunking? voter fraud never even mentioned federal court cases which I litigated at the Justice Department involving voter fraud. That? why these groups cannot be trusted. The academics treat the absurd claim that hundreds of thousands of voters can be disenfranchised by mistaken record cleanup efforts. But instead of offering solutions, they thwart those trying to do the right thing. They protest too much, especially when hundreds of counties have more registered voters than living adults. Finally, believe it or not, the commission will actually help cross a racial chasm. It is essentially impossible to perform a public study of the practical and weaknesses of our elections with the voter?s perspective in mind that is racially divisive. Need proof? Pick a poll, any poll, about the popularity of common sense voter ID laws across the country. The further you get from the educated white liberals who make up the election expert clique, the more appreciated it gets. If that sentiment spreads to voter registration and broader election reforms, it?s game over for those who try to divide on race. Apart from staring at solar eclipses and dishing about premium cable dramas, voting and the proper administration thereof is one of the last things the broad base of Americans can discuss. By self- censoring and eventually shuttering the commission, we sever another line of dialogue and decamp further into our tribal politics. I won?t have it. The commission will be in New Hampshire next week, despite the organized efforts of the un-consulted clique. J. Christian Adams is president and general counsel for the Public Interest Legal Foundation and a former Justice Department lawyer. He also serves on the Presidential Advisory Commission for Election Integrity. Message From: von Spakovsky, Hans Sent: 1/9/2018 7:08:25 PM Subject: The obstruction of a vital election integrity commission OPINION The obstruction of a vital election integrity commission by Hans von Spakovsky J. Christian Adams Jan 9, 2018, 1:e532- he commission may be dissolved, but the mandate from mainstream Americans to protect the integrity ofour elections remains. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) President Trump dissolved his Advisory Commission on Election Integrity last week before it could complete its work. As members of the commission, we were disappointed, but we understand why the president acted as he did. The commission?s assignment was to examine the integrity and security of the American election process. It was similar to work done by several prior presidential commissions. This time, however, unprecedented obstruction from many state election of?cials and partisan ?lawfare? made ful?lling our responsibilities virtually impossible. Right off the bat, a third of the states ?atly refused to give the commission the voter registration and voter history data we requested?even though it is supposed to be publicly available information. States routinely provide that same data to political parties, candidates, and other third parties. There are only two possible explanations for their refusal: either they were part of the partisan ?resist-Trump-at- any-costs movement,? or they were afraid of what we might ?nd. Additionally, a swarm of meritless lawsuits, ?led by progressive groups, hobbled our ability to make progress on our assignment. Even one of our fellow commissioners ioined in. Maine Secretary of State Matt Dunlap (a Democrat) rushed to federal court because he didn?t feel suf?ciently included. The litigation strategy was to force our staff to devote all their time to responding to frivolous lawsuits, thereby sabotaging the commission?s ability to function. At least eight suits were ?led directly against the commission, with several more lodged against other federal and state agencies to block their cooperation with the commission. A barrage of lawsuits doesn?t come cheap. The ?ood-the-zone legal offensive mounted by the commission?s foes shows that some extremely deep pockets want to keep the public from ?nding out the truth about voter fraud. And the truth is not pretty. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the Supreme Court?s 2008 majority opinion upholding Indiana?s voter ID law: ??agrant examples of such fraud. . .have been documented throughout this Nation?s history by respected historians and journalists. .. [and] demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.? We have many close elections in this country. Most recently, a Virginia legislative race ended in a tie with th_e winner determined by drawing lots. Does voter fraud really exist? You bet. In only two years, the Heritage Foundation has chronicled 1,107 proven instances of fraud throughout the country. Many resulted in stolen votes; some produced stolen elections. The Heritage database isn?t comprehensive. The think tank has neither the time nor the resources to do an exhaustive search. But it identi?es the many different ways fraud has been committed in recent years, including altering vote counts, ballot petition fraud, false registrations, impersonation fraud, duplicate voting, voting by ineligible felons and noncitizens, fraudulent absentee ballots, buying votes, and illegal coercion at the polls. Many news outlets have blatantly ignored this database while promoting the claims of the commission?s foes that voter fraud is non-existent. Such claims are themselves fraudulent. At the commission hearing in September, a witness testi?ed that his company did a comparison of voter records in 21 states. That represented only about 17 percent of all possible state-to-state comparisons. Yet even with that limited review, they identi?ed almost 8,500 individuals who voted twice in the November 2016 election by being registered in more than one state. The Public Interest Legal Foundation has found voter records showing thousands of noncitizens illegally registering and voting, including in Virginia, New Jersey, and This evidence, as well as many widely recognized defects in the voter registration and election process, make it clear that the integrity of our elections is far from assured. It?s a shame that the commission?s efforts to study and accurately de?ne the problem were thwarted. Well- funded advocacy groups, activist academics, and other individuals who are not credible worked to undermine and sabotage the commission?s work. Those who opposed this civic effort have now forfeited their seat at the table. The good news is that, although the commission has been disbanded, we and others dedicated to protecting our democratic system will continue our work to fix the vulnerabilities in our election process. Those who opposed the commission may delight in its dissolution, but before long they?ll see that advocates of election integrity have more stamina, perseverance, and the support of the people. The public understands the importance of having a secure system that assures that everyone who is eligible can vote and their vote is not diluted or stolen by fraudulent votes or administrative errors and mistakes by election of?cials. The commission may be dissolved, but the mandate from mainstream Americans to protect the integrity of our elections remains. Hans von Spakovsky (@HvonSgakost) is a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. J. Christian Adams @ElectionLawC tr) is president and general counsel of the Public Interest Legal Foundation. Both were members of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Hans von Spakovsky Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow Institute for Constitutional Government The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6207 heritageorg Message From: von Spakovsky, Hans Sent: 1/4/2018 4:53:55 PM Subject: Election Law Group - here is Christian Adams' statement on the dissolution of the president's advisory commission Foes of election integrity lost their seat at the table. Now the important work of improving the integrity of the election process will be done by people who believe in election integrity, not by those who seek to preserve vulnerabilities in the system. Over the years, demonstrable and empirical data has been developed showing noncitizen voting, double voting, and defects in the election system that no credible observer could deny. Some news outlets and activists have decided to ignore those facts, as if they do not exist. Unfortunately, there are plenty of well-funded groups, activist academics and individuals who are not credible who sought to undermine and sabotage the Commission?s work. They may delight today in the dissolution of the Commission, but before long they?ll realize that advocates of election integrity have more stamina, support and perseverance than they realize. Hans von Spakovsky Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow Institute for Constitutional Government The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6207 heritageorg Message From: von Spakovsky, Hans Sent: 7/20/2017 6:41:47 PM Subject: FW: Trump Assembles Federal Commission to Investigate Voter Fraud p-assem .THE DAILY SIGNAL Trump Assembles Federal Commission to Investigate Voter Fraud Hans von Spakovsky July 20, 2017 Note: he following is based on remarks made at the VWzite House by Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky. I want to thank President Donald Trump for the honor of having appointed me to the Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. I come at this issue of election integrity from very personal history. My German mother grew up in Nazi Germany as a child. My Russian father fought and escaped communism twice. They met in a displaced persons camp in Europe, after the end of World War 11, before immigrating to the United States. My childhood was ?lled with stories of what it?s like living in a dictatorship?and we were taught as children that the right to vote is a very precious right, it?s one that can be easily lost, and that it was our duty to always vote and participate in the democratic process. Iwant to ensure that every American who is eligible is able to vote, and that his or her vote is not stolen or diluted because of administrative mistakes, errors by election of?cials, or intentional wrongdoing by those who are willing to take advantage of what we have, which is basically an honor system. I have almost three decades of experience in the ?eld of voting and elections. That includes not only legal experience as a lawyer in the Department of Justice, enforcing federal laws that protect the right to vote, but I?ve also been a local county election of?cial in two states, Georgia and Virginia. So I know very well how hard election of?cials work to try to administer the voting process fairly. But we do have problems that need to be ?xed. We have vulnerabilities in the administrative system that we have, and we also have a history of voter fraud in this country. The Supreme Court itself said in 2008, when it upheld Indiana?s voter ID law, the US. has a long history of voter fraud, and it could make the difference in a close election. And we have many close elections in this country. One of the documents I want to hand out to everyone on the commission is a database that The Heritage Foundation started about two years ago of voter fraud cases from around the country. We are up to almost 1,100 proven cases of voter fraud, including almost 1,000 convictions of individuals in court. These cases run the gamut and show all ways that voter fraud is committed in this country. It includes impersonation fraud at the polls, false voter registrations, duplicate voting, fraudulent absentee ballots, vote buying, ineligible voting by felons and noncitizens, altering of vote counts, and ballot petition fraud. We know we have problems with the accuracy of our voter registration lists. Numerous studies have been done about this that show?including the Interstate Crosscheck Program?that we have literally hundreds of thousands of voters who are registered in multiple states, and we have many people who are deceased remaining on the voter rolls. No systematic, all-encompassing study has been done about these problems. But we know that more must be done to improve the accuracy of our voter registration system and the security of our voting process. I have full con?dence in this commission, which is a bipartisan commission, and I look forward to working with my colleagues. But I can?t end my remarks without addressing what I consider to be the unfair, unjust, and unwarranted criticisms that have been leveled at this commission and some of its members. My father passed on to me the belief that one of the best things about America is the ability to have spirited but civil debates, even on contentious issues. Yet we seem to have lost that valuable part of our democratic process. Members of this commission, including me, have already been subjected to vicious and defamatory personal attacks. Those who want to ensure the integrity of the election process are only interested in preserving our great democracy. The scurrilous charges that have been made are reprehensible and a tactic, frankly, to avoid a substantive debate on important issues and to prevent the research, inquiry, and study that is necessary to identify the problems in our election process, to determine what the solutions are, and to therefore ensure that we have the best election and best democratic system in the world. Hans von Spakovsky Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow Institute for Constitutional Government The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6207 heritageorg Message From: von Spakovsky, Hans Sent: 10/13/2017 12:55:24 PM Subject: Russian hacking didn?t alter election debates/106566026/ Russian hacking didn?t alter election Hans von Spakovsky Published 5:14 pm. ET Oct. 12, 2017 N0 credible evidence has been produced: Opposing view Outside a meeting of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.(Photo: Michael Reynolds, epa) Donald Trump won the 2016 election and it wasn?t because of the Russians. After more than a year of extensive investigations, there is not one iota of evidence the election results were hacked or otherwise successfully manipulated by the Russians or anyone else. One week after the election, I eh Johnson, President Obama?s secretary of Homeland Security, admitted that our election system had not been hacked and that no ballot counts had been changed. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security had to retract a claim that Russian hackers had gone after voter-registration systems in places such as California and Wisconsin after they said their systems hadn?t been targeted. For all of the supposed claims of ?collusion? that we?ve heard, no credible evidence of it has been produced, despite all of the resources (and intelligence leaks) devoted to trying to prove it. The latest claim is that a Russian company bought $100,000 in Internet pop-up ads. Most of the ads didn?t refer to the candidates but focused on social issues, according to The New York imes. Donald Trump spent about half as much on his presidential campaign as Hillary Clinton, who raised almost $600 million, and still won despite all her negative ads. Yet we?re supposed to believe that $100,000 in ads, mostly on issues, somehow brainwashed Americans into voting a particular way? What the purveyors of this conspiracy theory don?t want to admit is that Donald Trump?s victory, as well as that of other Republicans, aligns with political trends during the Obama presidency. Under Obama, the Democratic Party lost more congressional, state legislative and governor? seats than under any other president. The party is the weakest it has been since the 19203 in the number of political seats it holds nationwide. Without question, we should be on our guard against foreign actors trying to intervene in our elections. But so far, there is no proof that Russian efforts made any difference in 2016. Hans von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a member of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Hans von Spakovsky Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow Institute for Constitutional Government The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6207 heritageorg Message From: von Spakovsky, Hans Sent: 3/1/2018 6:53:16 PM Subject: Why aren't Mueller, the FBI and DOJ interested in illegal actions that might alter our elections? .333- Why aren't Mueller, the FBI and DOJ interested in illegal actions that might alter our elections? By Cleta Mitchell, Hans A. von Spakovsky Published March 01,2018 FoxN ews. com In announcing the recent indictments against Russians brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told the American people that ?there is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.? That was good news. The bad news is that the special counsel, the FBI, and the Department ofJustice don?t seem interested in illegal actions that may actually affect the outcome of US. elections. The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) sued on Monday for concealing numerous cases of noncitizens registering to vote. One election official testified before the state Legislature that an estimated 100,000 noncitizens are registered in the commonwealth. In the midst of the discovery last fall, Pedro Cortes resigned as secretary of state. PILF is suing for the release of the actual data still being kept confidential so that it can be used to correct the state?s voter rolls. Of course, the US. Department ofJustice could obtain this data easily. But it hasn?t lifted a finger. That leaves it up to the PILF. Ifthe organization can dislodge this crucial information through civil litigation, the truth about foreign votes cast in US. elections can be formally calculated and documented. Noncitizens should be criminally prosecuted for illegally registering and voting. But that will take a Justice Department waking up from its coma when it comes to enforcing federal laws against election crimes, including noncitizen voting. In a pending lawsuit against Starr County, Texas, along the Rio Grande Valley, PILF recently turned overto the local court evidence of: dead people (one a former politician) voting; organized noncitizen voter registration ploys; and poor voter list maintenance issues that allow such illegal schemes to flourish. This evidence has inspired prosecution of three individuals in the last month. Recently, the Texas Senate Select Committee on Election Security said that, absent the PILF efforts, authorities would not have known about the illegal voting that has already occurred, much less be able to thwart such schemes in the future. It is a violation of the federal criminal code for a noncitizen to register to vote. It is a separate criminal offense for a noncitizen to vote in a federal election. Many states, including have state laws barring the same ac?ons. The Department of Justice is charged with enforcing these federal laws to protect the integrity of American elections. Yet not once did the Obama administration bring a case or even inquire about a state?s effort to maintain voter rolls itself a requirement of federal law. In every federal election during the eight years of the Obama administration, hundreds of counties had more registered voters than living voting-age residents. Yet the progressive left remains steadfast in its determination to thwart all efforts to investigate and prosecute noncitizen voting. Witness its hysteria and outrage over President Trump?s Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. The left apparently cares nothing about illegal votes and criminal schemes to interfere with America?s elections. The left?s well-funded professional grievance industry uses the false mantra that ?no voter fraud exists? to squelch even the slightest inquiry into election integrity and to avoid inconvenient truths like the over 1,100 proven cases of election fraud documented in a database maintained by the Heritage Foundation. This is precisely why the case is so critical. What we don?t understand is why Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein continues to focus on Special Counsel Mueller rather than directing the Criminal Division to investigate real interference in the 2016 elections. To date, has just scratched the surface. Yet these limited investigations have exposed thousands of noncitizen registrants (and voters) in Virginia and New Jersey. Each time, the data were given to federal prosecutors, who appear to have done exactly nothing with the information. lfthe Department of Justice wants to do something useful to protect the integrity of American elections, investigating and prosecuting those among us who vote illegally thereby cancelling out the voices of legitimate voters would be a good place to start. Cleta Mitchell is an attorney/partner in the Washington office of Foley Lardner LLP, who practices in the area of campaign finance and election law. URL elections.html Hans von Spakovsky Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow Institute for Constitutional Government The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6207 heritageorg Message From: Christian Adams [a@electionlawcenter.com] Sent: 11/29/2017 1:33:15 PM To: John Subject: The Hill: Next major battle over voting rights in America is based on a lie Today. Thanks. The next major battle over voting rights in America is based on a lie By Christian Adams, opinion contributor 11/29/17 08:00 AM EST The next major battle for voting rights is built on a lie. Election officials and policymakers are being browbeaten by national activists and Twitter bots to dump an agreement between states to compare voter lists for identifying duplicates and potential fraud. Imagine that: Abandon tools to keep our elections more honest. If the digital mob had its way, America?s voter rolls would be maintained according to obsolete standards from the 1980s Voter rolls would remain an unmitigated mess. Some people must like it that way. As of now, 30 states have agreed to share voter records with each other to keep rolls updated when people move from state to state. The average American will relocate about 11 times in their life. When voters move, they rarely inform election officials. When they relocate and die, their records can live on for decades with their former officials none the wiser. In 2005, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa and Missouri decided to exchange information on voters moving across state lines who end up being registered in multiple states. If you moved from Topeka to Springfield, election officials could tell which voter record was more recent and archive the former once it was determined which record the voter wanted to keep active. Registrars knew they were dealing with the same person when they saw matching names, birthdates, and Social Security numbers in duplicate and even triplicate. Over time, the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck grew to 30 states leading into the 2016 election. That?s a good thing. This year, more than ?ve million potential duplicate voters were identified throughout the Crosscheck membership. Those research leads were turned over to local officials for further study and cleanup procedures where necessary. Like many systems built on common sense, Crosscheck is under emerging attack. A social media conspiracy turned Harvard study seeks to cast doubts on the reliability of the compact and trigger its dissolution. The academic researchers fret that if states are limiting the factors by which a voter can be considered a duplicate, such as only looking at matching names and birthdates, they risk misidentifying voters 99 percent of the time. The actual Crosscheck program doesn?t operate by such simplistic methods. An email earlier this year among election officials obtained by the Public Interest Legal Foundation details how Social Security numbers and other facts are used to effectively identify duplicates in need of attention. The message also details how certain pieces of sensitive data per record are concealed during distribution for obvious security reasons. The false ?99 percent? headline is also paired with a study criticizing the information technology security systems around Crosscheck itself. No reasonable adult living in this century will argue against the ongoing need to improve cyber protections for any system vulnerable to attack, from which no one is immune, especially in light of Sony, Equifax, Uber, and the government?s Of?ce of Personnel and Management. Working to discredit an entity based on the need for better technology guys is a desperate move, however. This line of attack ignores the fact that no such cyber intrusions have been documented, nor does it note that the vast majority of voter data held is public information under federal law and is often sold by state governments at a profit. There is a well-funded and dishonest campaign launching against the important Crosscheck program. Activists successfully pushed Illinois lawmakers to reconsider their membership but later failed to inspire the state elections board to dump the system in a vote on Nov. 20. Although they likely considered the state to be an easy ?rst domino to fall and they failed, they will not stop trying. One county clerk in Idaho tried to hype doubts over the program?s reliability even after his office admitted to cutting comers in handling the data. Crosscheck is slowly being admitted into the canon of grasping rationalizations for why Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in 2016. The state of Indiana is now facing a federal lawsuit to block their future use of Crosscheck, despite the plaintiffs failure to produce a single voter that was negatively impacted. (I am personally engaged helping to defend Indiana in that litigation in my capacity with the Public Interest Legal Foundation.) Crosscheck also reveals the names of individuals who may have voted twice. Considering that voting twice is a federal felony that alone justifies its existence and perhaps explains why so many oppose it. It?s time for the Justice Department to start prosecuting those who deliberately cast two votes for president. States should always be on the lookout for new ways to collaborate in the hopes of keeping pace with the electorate. The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity is ideally placed to help study and offer best practices for improved cooperation in identifying outdated records. Crosscheck is a tool that when used properly, helps the integrity of American elections. J. Christian Adams is president and general counsel for the Public Interest Legal Foundation and a former Justice Department lawyer. He also serves on the Presidential Advisory Commission for Election Integrity. Message From: von Spakovsky, Hans Sent: 9/1/2017 2:21:47 PM Subject: Important article about the president's advisory commission on election integrity dailvsi gnalcom/ZO 7/ 8/ 3 .THE DAILY SIGNAL Spewing Outrage at Voter Fraud Commission, Judge and Media Miss Facts Katrina Trinko August 31, 2017 Once you know the facts, the latest narrative painting President Donald Trump? 5 Election Integrity Advisory Commission as a shady group refusing to make its documents public falls apart. Let me backtrack. Here is the key section from a Washington Post article published Aug. 30: US. District Judge Colleen Kollar?Kotelly of Washington said the Election Integrity Commission released only an agenda and proposed bylaws before its ?rst meeting at the White House complex last month. But once gathered, commissioners had thick binders that included documents the public had not seen, including a specially prepared report and a 381-page ?database? purporting to 1,100 cases of voter fraud, both from the think tank Heritage Foundation. Ah, yes, those scary thick binders. (What is it with the left and binders? Maybe Mitt Romney could give me some insight.) Well, as exciting as it would be if there were a top-secret Heritage Foundation voter fraud database there isn?t one. You can peruse the entire public Heritage voter fraud database right here. The existence of the 2-year-old database has hardly been a secret. In fact, we?ve run two Daily Signal articles just this summer that mention it: ?Growing Pile of Data Shows That Voter Fraud Is a Real and Vast Problem? and ?Voter Fraud Database Tops 1,000 Proven Cases.? If we were trying to keep it a secret, we?d be doing a lousy job of it. So, far from being ?documents the public had not seen,? these are documents The Heritage Foundation and The Daily Si gnal?the multimedia news arm of the organization?have been pushing out to the public and encouraging wide readership of. And no, the database isn?t ?purporting to show,? as the Post put it, over 1,000 cases of voter fraud. It?s just, well, showing around 1,100 cases of clear voter fraud. As the introduction to the database puts it, ?The Heritage Foundation is providing a list of election fraud cases from across the country, broken down by state, where individuals were either convicted of vote fraud, or where a judge overturned the results of an election.? And that ?specially prepared report? also cited? My Heritage Foundation colleague Hans von Spakovsky, who is a member of the Election Integrity Commission, thinks the Post might be referring ?to a report that was provided to members of the commission by US. Election Assistance Commissioner Christy McCormick, not The Heritage Foundation.? ??The Election Administration and Voting Survey 2016 Comprehensive Report? is an official report of the [Election Assistance Commission],? explains von Spakovsky. ?It is also a report available to the public on the [commission] website This report was ?led by the [Election Integrity Commission] with Congress at the end of June, several weeks before the July 19 meeting of the commission.? So yeah, that was also available to the public. ?If the judge or the reporters had spent 10 seconds on the intemet doing a Google search, they could have easily found the hyperlinks to these documents that individual commissioners on their own brought to the commission to provide to their fellow commissioners,? says von Spakovsky. Huffington Post also reported on the judge?s remarks about the commission: Those documents included prepared opening statements, a Heritage Foundation study on alleged incidents of voter fraud, a voting survey by the US. Election Assistance Commission and an article from the Yale Law Policy Review. The commission did post the documents after the meeting. So those opening statements? Well, if you?re looking for a way to fall asleep, you can watch the full 2 hours and 18 minutes of the commission?s meeting, at which the opening statements were read out loud, here on the White House?s YouTube channel. And the Yale article? Well, granted, we live in busy times, but anyone who?s interested has had a full eight years to peruse that?it?s been available since 2009. You?d think it would be relatively uncontroversial to have a commission study how to ensure the integrity of our election process. But apparently not. But misleading statements by judge and media aside, it?s clear that there?s no hidden, secret packet of information that was read by those on the commission when they met July 19. Now if only the left could spend as much energy on actually eliminating voter fraud, cleaning up voter rolls, and ensuring that only eligible Americans are voting. Hans von Spakovsky Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow Institute for Constitutional Government The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6207 heritageorg