General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsleftstreet
(36,112 posts)The states that are 'complying' issued statements they'd only give what their laws allow. Which largely DOES NOT include what he was after to start with!
He's making it sound like he's scored a WIN!!
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)dalton99a
(81,570 posts)It needs Febreze
madaboutharry
(40,220 posts)An example is Iowa. The Iowa Secretary of State issued a statement that made clear the only information that might be sent is information that is already available to the public. Everything else is protected information and giving it over is a violation of Iowa Law and the commission is not going to get it.
Saying that this constitutes cooperation is a lie.
Kobach is full of crap.
SCantiGOP
(13,873 posts)South Carolina one of the states listed as refusing. Actually, the Governor and Sec or State said that they would turn over all info that is available to the public, but that would not include party registration (SC has no party registration) or SocSec numbers (that is forbidden by state law). But the Governor's statement went on to say he was glad this effort was underway since it may uncover large-scale voting fraud.
Our Gov was the Lt Gov during the campaign, and was the first statewide elected official to endorse Trump. Story is that Trump asked him if he wanted a job in the Administration or to be Governor - that is what led to Gov Nikki Haley getting the UN job so Lt Gov McMaster could move up. So I knew something wasn't quite right when SC was showing up on the refusal lists.
EleanorR
(2,395 posts)I don't see how providing information that's already public and readily available to anyone is complying.
SCantiGOP
(13,873 posts)But the Governor said he was happy to hand over everything he could legally give them, and was excited that this request had been made. It would have been illegal to hand over any more than they did.
So that is a bit of a stretch to say that SC "refused" to give the data.
Phoenix61
(17,019 posts)through public records request? What a lying sack of shit.
Permanut
(5,637 posts)So let's have another look at what's "patently false".
Bengus81
(6,932 posts)basis knew who he was because I live in Kansas, I can tell you that POS is the only thing FAKE here. He has LIED his ass off in Kansas for YEARS about all the illegal voting going on to the tune of 10,000 per election. He disenfranchised 18,000 in the last election before an Appeals Court stopped him. In reality he found 4 or 5 WHITE people who moved here and did vote twice.
Hmmm....he never says who they voted for here,want to guess?
August 2016:
Arguing for the lower court's decision to be upheld, the American Civil Liberties Union specifically targeted a portion of Kansas law that deals with people who register to vote at motor vehicle department offices. The ACLU argued that the requirement conflicts with a federal law from 1993 aimed at making it easier for people to register to vote by doing so when they apply for a driver's license. Because that law does not require people to bring more documentation than they would need to get a driver's license, Robinson ruled that about 18,000 people whose registration had been invalidated by the state should be re-registered.
Republican Party presidential candidate Donald Trump, who earlier this month said that voters who opposed his candidacy are "going to vote 10 times," is asking supporters to volunteer to be election observers at the polls. He routinely calls Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton "crooked" and has said that if he loses, it will be because the system is rigged against him.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-kansas-voterid-idUSKCN10Y0V9