Trump's Campaign Is Engaged In Lawsuits All Over The Country To Try To Make Safe Voting More Difficult

from the self-interest-shouldn't-be-so-blindingly-apparent-y'all dept

Anyone still hoping for an orderly election and, if need be, a peaceful transition of power hasn't been paying attention to much that's happened over the past few months. As the presidential election approaches, everything is still in a disturbing state of flux. Multiple states have failed to flatten the COVID-19 curve, necessitating some walking back of earlier "everything's fine" pronouncements.

The safest way to vote may be from the comfort of your own home. But that option doesn't appeal to President Trump, his campaign, or the Republican National Committee. All have engaged in a lot of unhelpful -- if not actually deadly -- rhetoric against both at-home voting and the general use of any protective measures to prevent the spread of the virus.

It's not like "distance voting" is a novelty. Absentee voting happens all the time. Just because there will be more quasi-absentee votes to count during this election is no reason to believe voters at home will engage in widespread voter fraud. Voter fraud is almost nonexistent. Enough checks are in place to prevent most of it and there's very little evidence anyone has ever engaged in a massive conspiracy to rig a presidential election.

Since the Trump Campaign (and the president himself) don't have facts on their side, they've decided to lawyer up. Voter suppression has always been a thing, but these entities want it blessed by courts, if not actually codified.

President Donald Trump’s campaign and the Republican Party are devoting millions of dollars to wage a state-by-state legal battle against mail-in voting during the coronavirus pandemic, not only suing state officials but also intervening in cases where they aren’t a party to limit how Americans can vote from home.

BuzzFeed News identified at least 11 cases where the Trump campaign has asked judges for permission to intervene to defend state and local policies that voting rights advocates argue will make it harder for people to safely vote during the pandemic. That’s in addition to more than half a dozen lawsuits the campaign has filed with the Republican National Committee contesting efforts by Democratic governors and other state and local officials to expand mail-in voting.

Here are a few of the things Trump's campaign and the RNC are suing about. In one case, his campaign is trying to limit the number of ballot drop boxes available to voters. In another, they're trying to prevent the automatic mailing of ballots or ballot request forms to voters. And these entities aren't limiting themselves to trying to intercede in election-related lawsuits where they aren't a party. They're also suing states directly to prevent expansions of absentee or mail-in voting.

Whatever the reasons Trump's lawyers state in their court filings, the real reason behind this flurry of litigation is the Trump campaign believes more votes means more votes for Joe Biden.

Early data compiled by the United States Elections Project at the University of Florida show that in Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Colorado, absentee ballot requests are up compared to previous election cycles, with registered Democrats outnumbering registered Republicans.

So, when Trump says something like this…

“My biggest risk is that we don’t win lawsuits,” Trump said at the time. “We have many lawsuits going all over. And if we don’t win those lawsuits, I think— I think it puts the election at risk.”

… he doesn't mean the election is at risk. He means his continued federal employment is at risk.

No one wants a fraudulent election. But that's the least likely outcome of expanded at-home voting. It does no good to argue we shouldn't do it this way because it's never been done this way before. A global pandemic has changed the definition of social interactions, possibly for years to come. Fighting in court to force people to choose between their health and their vote doesn't make election results more authentic. It just makes sure a large number of people won't have their voices heard.

Filed Under: donald trump, election, mail in ballots, voter fraud, voter suppression

Federal Elections Committee Chair Is Sick Of Donald Trump's Bullshit: Put Up Or Shut Up About Voter Fraud

from the the-hero-we-need dept

Just days after the two Republican members of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) blocked an investigation into the NRA and its use of Russian funds to influence the election, the chair of the FEC (who voted for that investigation) has pointed out that Donald Trump should put up or shut up with his totally baseless, absolutely insane, claims that "voter fraud" cost him millions of votes in the election.

The letter itself is too good not to share, so I'll reprint it here. Don't miss the kicker at the end.

Mr. President,

Back in February 2017, when you first alleged a voter-fraud scheme of astonishing scale in New Hampshire in 2016, I publicly called upon you to provide your evidence to the American people and the appropriate law enforcement authorities so that your very serious claims could be investigated. I followed up in March 2017 with a letter to you repeating my request.

You have not, so far, provided any proof of these allegations.

Last night, you repeated your claim: "New Hampshire should've been won last time," you told reporters before your rally, "except we had a lot of people come in at the last moment, which was a rather strange situations, thousands and thousands of people, coming in from locations unknown. But I knew where their location was." During your rally, you told the crowd that New Hampshire was "taken away from us."

What I wrote to you in March 2017 is just as true now: Our democracy depends on the American people's faith in our elections. Your voter-fraud allegations run the risk of undermining that faith. Just as seriously, baseless allegation of fraud have been used to rationalize indefensible laws that deter certain U.S. citizens from exercising their right to vote. Words matter, and facts matter.

The American people count on me, as the Chair of their Federal Election Commission, to protect the integrity of our elections. So I ask you, once again, to provide any evidence you may have to the American people and the appropriate law-enforcement authorities to substantiate your claims. The American people are ill-served when our leaders put forward unfounded allegations of voter fraud.

To put it in terms a former casino operator should understand: There comes a time when you need to lay your cards on the table or fold.

This is an excellent letter that will make no difference in the world, unfortunately. The FEC has no real power, and as the vote on the NRA/Russia shows, even if she wanted to do something about it Weintraub is blocked by the others on the Commission. But the larger point is that the President doesn't care. Because he doesn't need to. He will make up whatever he wants, and whatever he needs to soothe his ego of himself and his angry sycophantic fans (yes, I'm looking forward to the comments on this one), because that's really all he's got to go on these days. He can and will ignore the chair of the FEC and he will continue to spout this completely made up nonsense of voter fraud in New Hampshire because it suits his narrative -- and his narrative is always facts-optional.

Filed Under: donald trump, ellen weintraub, evidence, fec, new hampshire, voter fraud

Trump Administration Wants To Start Sending Secret Service Agents To Polling Stations

from the Make-America-Grovel-Again dept

Something pretty ugly has been attached as a rider to a routine reauthorization bill. If the bill manages to move forward without this being stripped, future elections would resemble those held by dictatorial governments, where the outcome is assured before the first voter is even intimidated.

President Trump would be able to dispatch Secret Service agents to polling places nationwide during a federal election, a vast expansion of executive authority, if a provision in a Homeland Security reauthorization bill remains intact.

This appears to be the result of Trump's continued insistence he would have won the popular vote if there hadn't been so many illegal votes. Of course, the administration has produced no evidence this happened in the last election. The only story that surfaced as a result of this post-election scrutiny was one involving someone who voted twice… for Trump.

Needless to say, state officials overseeing elections are horrified. The intrusion of the law enforcement branch that works closest with the president would give elections the appearance that Secret Service agents are there to prevent voters from voting for the wrong person. Given Trump's antipathy towards anyone that isn't white with a red hat, dispatched agents would certainly deter those not matching the chosen description from exercising their rights.

State officials are trying to get the attention of unwary Capitol Hill legislators before it's too late. The bill with the rider attached has already passed in the House. The Senate is still looking through its two versions of the reauthorization bill -- one with the rider attached and one that's arguably more respectful of voting rights and the citizens exercising them.

“There is no discernible need for federal secret service agents to intrude, at the direction of the president, who may also be a candidate in that election, into thousands of citadels where democracy is enshrined,” according to a letter opposing the provision that was signed by 19 bipartisan secretaries of state and elections commissioners.

The letter — sent to the Senate’s majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and its minority leader, Charles Schumer, on Friday afternoon —requests that the Senate keep the Secret Service provision from the final legislation. The elections officials described the proposal as “unprecedented and shocking.”

“This is an alarming proposal which raises the possibility that armed federal agents will be patrolling neighborhood precincts and vote centers,” according to the letter, which was obtained by the Globe.

Very few people are going to see the presence of federal agents -- especially from an agency with close ties to the White House -- and think a fair election is in progress. The presence of any federal agents would be cause for concern, if not for the integrity of the election, than for the safety of those voting. Generally, a large law enforcement presence does not indicate safety. It indicates the area they're guarding may come under attack. Either way, this will do nothing for voter turnout and will definitely dissuade those who aren't voting for the party in power from casting their vote.

As it stands now, federal law prohibits federal agents for entering polling places. This rider would eliminate a protection put in place to protect Americans from government intrusion into the democratic process. Dispatching the Secret Service to any place Trump feels might be overrun with fake voters would only give citizens the impression the fix is in. And if it's already been decided, why bother running a federal gauntlet just to show support for your candidates?

Hopefully, common sense will prevail. But given the fact the rider was already approved by one half of legislative branch, relying on common sense seems almost nonsensical.

Filed Under: authoritarianism, donald trump, polling places, secret service, voter fraud

Trump Puts Voter Data Collection On Hold After Highly Insecure & Potentially Illegal Process Is Widely Ridiculed

from the encryption-is-for-losers dept

At the tail end of June, The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity turned heads when it began asking states for confidential voter data. The Commission was formed via executive order back in May as part of a supposed effort to crack down on what the Trump administration has insisted (without any supporting evidence) is an epidemic of widespread voting and voter registration fraud. As part of the data collection the Trump administration demanded voter names, political affiliations, addresses, dates of birth, criminal records, the last four digits of their Social Security numbers, and more.

But it didn't take long for the entire effort to unravel. The commission's first misstep was asking states to submit this personal data via unencrypted e-mail. The commission also offered states the ability to deliver the data via a system called SAFE—the Safe Access File Exchange. Traditionally used by the military for the transfer of unclassified files too large for email, the service does allow encrypted transfers via civilian computers, but would have required numerous technical steps and guidance (the commission didn't take or offer) to adequately protect the data's integrity:

"But the site’s HTTPS setup, which enables data transmitted from a browser to the site to be sent over an encrypted connection, is problematic for civilian users in state governments. In fact, when state government officials visit the website, they are greeted with a conspicuous warning telling them that their connection is not private—implying that the data could be stolen or altered in transit."

The commission's attempt to obtain private voter data by insecure means was quickly and surprisingly laughed off by the majority of states concerned with the obvious privacy implications. Only Arkansas has fully complied with the President's request, and many states expressed concern that the request and insecure transfer of private data could violate respective state voter privacy laws. Trump's response to these entirely legitimate, bipartisan concerns about voter privacy? Taking to Twitter to accuse the states of trying to hide something:

Things have been notably complicated by a lawsuit by the ACLU, which claims the commission violated federal public access requirements by holding its first meeting in private, without public notice. The effort has also been hamstrung by a request by The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) for a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the administration's request until the privacy issue can be litigated in court. That has subsequently forced the Trump administration and its commission to suspend its data collection efforts until a Judge rules on the request:

"Today, July 10, 2017, the Commission also sent the states a follow-up communication requesting the states not submit any data until this Court rules on plaintiff's TRO motion," the government wrote (PDF) the court. The commission e-mailed state election officials early Monday that, "Until the judge rules on the TRO, we request that you hold on submitting any data."

EPIC is suing the commission on accusations that the requested information violates the privacy of American voters. EPIC also says the commission is asking the states to forward the data to an unsecure website, the Department of Defense Safe File Exchange site. The commission said that, if it prevails, it will "use an alternative means for transmitting the requested data."

This all appears to be driven by Trump's belief that the only way he could have possibly lost the popular vote is due to fraud (which again, nobody has found any evidence of). Bubbling under all of this is the additional concern that this entire effort has little to do with actually policing voter fraud, and everything to do with finding new and ingenious methods of voter suppression down the road.

Filed Under: donald trump, elections, privacy, voter data, voter fraud

Election Day CyberFest: Hackers, Hacking, 'Journalism,' The FBI, And Jiveass Baloney

from the The-Year-to-End-All-Years dept

As this election's perfect argument for the dismantling of the two-party system has shuddered to a halt, the overriding issue appeared not to be a race run pretty much on no issues at all, but an unhealthy amount of paranoia.

Between the FBI's inadvertently bipartisan investigation (and reinvestigation) of Hillary Clinton's emails, the constant cry that the Russians are coming (two if by underwater cable), and Donald Trump's insistence that the election is rigged (until he won), voting (and voting machines) are the cyber-est thing of all this election season.

If no one's tampering with the machines, someone's tampering with the voters. Trump greeted early returns with a lawsuit over the supposed illegality of letting everyone lined up to vote actually vote before closing the booths. The bold new face of bounty-based "journalism" -- spearheaded by Pax Dickinson and questionable lawsuit enthusiast Chuck Johnson -- spent all day offering a $6720 bounty for evidence of voter fraud. At this point it remains uncollected, and the law of diminishing returns has sapped the energy from retweeters.

Add into the fun a set of researchers finding (SHOCKER!) voting machines to be terribly insecure. That in itself isn't new, but letting everyone in on how exactly to do it certainly is.

The problem relates to a 16MB Compact Flash card that each AVC Edge machine relies upon, which can be easily removed, modified and replaced for the purpose of modifying voter counts.

“After about four days and about $25 worth of hardware we had the machines spitting out results that cannot be technically refuted,” Ryan Smith, vice president of research at Cylance, tells Newsweek.

“It is an odd state of affairs when the technology in your phone is so strong that the FBI, with an $8.3 billion budget and months of work, cannot find a way into the machine protecting your text messages, yet the machines protecting our democracy can be foiled with just $25 in 32 hours.”

While we all can appreciate the offhand suggestion that it's the government that should be "nerding harder," plenty of people seemed upset that the researchers would drop this news into the already-overboiling election pot.

“This disclosure seems political in nature,” bug-bounty expert Katie Moussouris told The Verge. “Releasing this publicly, after DHS and states have been aware of these types of attacks for years, only serves to fuel the fires of doubting the election results.”

Hackers for Trump or whatever. This concern seems misplaced, given the inherent hackability of voting machines. It certainly grabs more eyeballs than it would in an off year, but there's nothing in here that suggests the release's timing was motivated by Trump's claims that voter fraud would be the only explanation for him not collecting more of the popular vote.

Finally, we get to the nadir of election paranoia. And, of course, it involves the FBI.

A tweet suggesting hacking of voting machines was in the works was sent out on October 21st. With impeccable timing, the FBI apparently showed up at the tweeter's door on election day.

This tweet just earned ya boy Jive a visit from the motherfucking FBI. Not even joking.

So, a photo of some USB drives and screencap of supposed code was enough to motivate the feds into investigating almost three weeks later. Things were cleared up when it became apparent a.) it was a joke and b.) the screencapped code wouldn't even work.

But if you're going to draw the heat, you may as well do in style. Choose your social media handle for maximum federal uncomfortableness, kids.

First question they asked me was "Are you the Twitter user, uh Jiveass *checked notes*...Baloney?

So, we have a new president-elect. At least that much is out of the way. There are only 45 shopping days till Christmas and an eon to go before this stupid year finally ends.

Filed Under: e-voting, elections, hacking, voter fraud, voting machines