Discussion: Judge Clears Way For Trump's Election Fraud Commission To Collect Voter Data

1 Like

We’re well on our way, kids.


I was going to post that yesterday or today. Today, I happened upon some good news here:

Poland’s president did veto the law. That said, it may not be the end of the story.


Funny. I just came back to post the article what you just posted.

So maybe there’s … some hope?


There is a potential upside to this, although we progressives would have to become truly blood thirsty to implement it.

When we Dump Donnie and Repulse the Republicans, we can use that database to deny medical care to anyone who voted for the Cheeto Jesus.

Elections have consequences. These morons have always counted on our saving their worthless asses. Let them die. Average IQ will rise 10 points for the entire country. And we won’t be supporting multigenerational families of drug addicted losers who’ve figured out how to be successful racists, without the necessity of actually getting off their a&&es& and doing real work. Unlike the rest of us, who are supporting them.

The judge said Trump’s bogus election fraud commission can ask for personal information, but does that mean the states have to comply with their requests?


Is it being appealed?


Well yeah, if we lack all morality, sense of decency and just ignore the Equal Protection Clause because hey, the Constitution’s just a goddamn piece of paper, we could totally do that.


Anybody see the opinion so they know on what ground the judge ruled against EPIC? OR is it just one of those “I don’t care what you say” rulings?


There’s always hope.

And we are so not Poland. Not even close.


“A federal judge…”

“In a ruling Monday, the judge denied…”

Who? Where? (When? What?) Why? These are the basics of good journalism and mostly missing in this piece. I expect better at TPM.

Is the ruling by an unnamed judge in an unnamed location being appealed? By some unnamed litigant, perhaps?



I’m not sure that this decision clears the way. It merely holds that a particular statutory hurdle is not applicable to the Kobach request. I would think that it will be appealed, and that in any case there are other grounds for challenging Kobach.

I agree that it’s bad reporting, but it’s an AP story, not TPM…


There’s a switch, tagged and ID’d voters and anonymous partisan tool judges. All in seven months. Are we great again yet?


It’s a mini-pulsar emitting cosmic levels of derp and covfefe!

1 Like

Yeah, really shitty reporting by AP, by someone who probably has no business being on a legal beat.

I got a little more, but still sketchy, info from the NPR top o’ the hour news.

Basis of the ruling according to that was that whatever privacy law EPIC was suing under didn’t apply to the voter harassment commission. The NPR reporter (whose name I don’t remember) expressed doubt about how much the ruling would mean given that states were refusing to comply. This suggests that it doesn’t necessarily mean the states must comply, but this is still pretty sketchy reporting. (@opinionated1, trying to answer your question.)

I’ll see if I can find out anything more, but there are better legal eagles out there than I, with better tools than I have.

OK, here’s the order, courtesy of EPIC.

Order: Motion for TRO/preliminary injunction denied without prejudice.

It’s a 35-page order and I’m still plowing through it (just skimming it), but it appears the basis is:

  1. The E-Government Act does not provide for a private cause of action;
  2. The commission is not an “agency” for purposes of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA); so its actions are not “agency actions”.
  3. Defendants can’t be compelled to produce a Privacy Impact Assessment under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA); the statute does not require defendants to do so, only the E-Government Act does, so we’re back to that statute and the APA.
  4. No irreparable injury, balance of equities and public interest in “equipoise”.

(I’m not agreeing necessarily with any of this; I’m just the stenographer.)

Note: about 15 of the 35 pages are devoted to standing issues. Court ruled that the plaintiffs have standing (obviously).

Judge is Kathleen Collar-Kotelly, USDJ for District of Columbia. Clinton appointee; also PJ of the FISA court from May 2002 - May 2009.

Second edit:
Useful summary of the case and ruling at the judge’s ballotpedia page.


Thank you.

That is an impressive summary–I truly appreciate it.

1 Like

I think the ballotpedia page has a pretty decent, readable summary. Needless to say it doesn’t cover all 35 pages, but the opinion starts out by saying “this is gonna be highly technical and even lawyers may not be up on a lot of this stuff.” I completely skipped over the standing stuff, which was the bulk of the opinion.

Anyway, glad it was helpful :slight_smile:

Edit: PS - If you want to take a really deep dive, here are all the documents filed in the case, along with EPIC’s overview.

Did the Commission request party affiliation?