CNN is reporting that 44 states are rejecting, whole or in part, the request of a Presidential commission on electoral fraud for detailed voting information.
Forty-four states have refused to provide certain types of voter information to the Trump administration’s election integrity commission, according to a CNN inquiry to all 50 states.
State leaders and voting boards across the country have responded to the letter with varying degrees of cooperation — from altogether rejecting the request to expressing eagerness to supply information that is public.
This reminded me of a report from local news station WCCO on the subject, which left me vaguely disturbed. It included a brief interview with a certain Andy Cilek, the executive director of the Minnesota Voters Alliance (MVA). Here’s his comment:
“Our goal is to suppress illegal voting. We don’t want illegal voting,” Cilek said.
Which according to President Donald Trump, totaled in the millions in the last election, preventing him from winning the popular vote. While Cilek believes the number is significantly lower.
“Would I say hundreds of thousands? Yes,” Cilek said.
Cilek said he thinks it’s wrong that Minnesota Secretary of State Scott Simon won’t fully cooperate with President’s Voter Fraud panel.
Now I’ve isolated why I’m upset. This is actually a fairly underhanded move on Cilek’s part. Now, before I go any further, making that sort of statement based purely on a news report is somewhat risky, although the reporter should have followed up. What has my ire? What we’re seeing here is congruent with a fairly classic maneuver in which the moral high ground is taken in order to advance a real agenda of a dubious nature. In this case, it’s hard to argue about voting irregularities; that is, we should all want a fair voting procedure. So, in that regard, MVA is supposedly for a public good.
But Mr. Cilek now indulges in the logical fallacy of appeal to authority – specifically, his own. After all, he’s director of the MVA – so he can make this claim of “hundreds of thousands” of illegal ballots being cast. Much like President Trump, he offers no evidence for this claim.
And if he has such evidence, it is incumbent on him to submit that evidence to law enforcement in order to follow up on the commission of crimes against the Republic. If he has submitted this evidence, my apologies – but he should provide this evidence for public consumption, then.
Think about that. This guy, who wears the robe of authority, suggests that hundreds of thousands of crimes have been committed, yet he’s not submitting the evidence. Thus, his appeal to a fallacy, and why he shouldn’t be trusted. Is this another plot to undermine public confidence in our electoral system? Or, as progressives often claim, is his hidden agenda simply to work on suppressing votes which often end up with the Democrats?
In any case, unless he has evidence, his claim of hundreds of thousands of illegal votes is irresponsible. Provide the evidence or resign, Mr. Cilek.
Moving on, I had to laugh at Trump’s reaction to the refusal of the States, red and blue, of his panel’s demands:
Numerous states are refusing to give information to the very distinguished VOTER FRAUD PANEL.
Bold mine. So who are these panelists? MVA itself lists the following:
The commission will include two Republicans, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell and Indiana Secretary of State Connie Lawson, and two Democrats, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner and Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap.
Christy McCormick, a former Justice Department attorney and a member of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, will also be on the panel, and others will be named soon.
We have a bunch of minor-league politicians so far. Another source includes Kansas Secretary of State Kobach as vice chairman, a politician who made his name in GOP circles in Kansas for his claims and prosecutions of voting irregularities. When faced with the claims of Dr. Clarkson concerning systematic voting irregularities, he refused to share critical data, and a judge agreed with him, so that was that. His reputation appears to be of great energy; this does not make for any claims of being distinguished, however.
I’d be far more impressed with this panel if there were some academics on it, rather than just a bunch of politicos of uncertain motivation. Perhaps Professor Clarkson, for example.
