With Claims of Rampant Voter Fraud, Trump Election Commission Lays the Groundwork for New Restrictions

In the commission’s second meeting, its vice chair doubled down on an unfounded claim of illegal voting in New Hampshire.

President-elect Donald Trump greets Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach in November.Carolyn Kaster/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

If its meeting on Tuesday was any indication, President Donald Trump’s election commission is focused on building up a narrative about widespread voter fraud—and potentially laying the groundwork to impose new restrictions on voting in order to combat it.

The members of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity have promised to undertake their work without preconceived notions and denied allegations that they’ll push for new policies that make it harder to vote. But at the commission’s second meeting, in New Hampshire on Tuesday, vice-chair Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state, continued to perpetuate the unfounded claim that illegal voting tipped the state to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

Ahead of the meeting, Kobach penned an op-ed in Breitbart in which he claimed there is “proof” that illegal votes cast by residents of other states caused Trump to lose New Hampshire. Kobach refused to back away from that claim on Tuesday, saying that “we will never know the legitimacy of the election” in New Hampshire. His assertion is based on the fact that more than 5,000 people voted in the state using out-of-state driver’s licenses, which is legal, and that few of them subsequently obtained New Hampshire licenses.

Kobach’s claim was quickly rebutted by New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, a Democrat on the commission. Gardner said the election results were “real and valid” and that Kobach was finding for conclusions unsupported by the evidence.

The all-day hearing raises more questions about the intentions of Kobach and other commissioners, including Hans von Spakovsky of the conservative Heritage Foundation, who has a long history of pushing for voting restrictions. Wendy Weiser of the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice commented on Twitter, “Most of the fraud commission’s evidence of fraud seems to come from the commissioners themselves.”

Kobach’s claim about New Hampshire set the tone for the rest of the session. During the following panel, titled “Current Election Integrity Issues Affecting Public Confidence,” Kobach took the opportunity to tout the eight prosecutions of fraud he has pursued in Kansas, as well as two more he currently has “in the hopper.”

Von Spakovsky spent a significant part of his testimony citing cases in the Heritage Foundation Voter Fraud Database, which he manages: a 2000 case in California, a 2008 case in Washington, a 2002 case in Alabama, a 2009 case in Texas. The Brennan Center evaluated the database ahead of Tuesday’s meeting and found that its entries were a grab bag of mostly old cases and that its claims of fraud were “grossly exaggerated.” Von Spakovsky also cited a deeply flawed report by a fellow commissioner, J. Christian Adams, which claimed that thousands of “aliens” have been casting votes in Virginia.

Another speaker on the panel, Ken Block, testified about a recent study he conducted on double voting in the 2016 election for the Government Accountability Institute, the watchdog group co-founded by former Trump strategist Steve Bannon. Block’s study concluded that there were 40,000 instances of double-voting in the 2016 election and that these illegal votes had a significant effect on close contests around the country. Experts have pointed out flaws in the study, but it did go further than trying to simply match names and birthdates of voters in different states, which critics fear the commission itself will do with the voter data it has collected. Still, the study actually identified a relatively small number of instances of double-voting compared to the total votes cast.

While Kobach and von Spakovsky portrayed voter fraud as a pervasive problem, they didn’t speak much about solutions. What the commission might do about fraud didn’t come up until the very end of the panel, when commissioner Adams—a conservative attorney who sues counties to force them to purge their voter rolls—asked the panelists whether voter rolls could be cleaned without disenfranchising eligible voters. They all said yes.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate