Last week, Kris Kobach, appointed by President Donald Trump to investigate voter fraud, sent a letter to all 50 states, requesting their voter files. Voters’ names, their party affiliation, military status, and other personal information, Kobach wrote, should be handed over to the Election Integrity Commission. In addition, the last four digits of voters’ Social Security numbers should be provided to the federal government, the letter said.

Within a few days, a majority of states rejected Kobach’s request; many were aghast at his demands. And on Friday, Kobach himself said he could not comply with parts of his own request. Here is what you need to know about the whole situation:

Trump Decries Voter Fraud

Kobach’s effort has its roots in Trump’s repeated claims about voter fraud. Trump has said three to five million people illegally voted in last fall’s election, thus handing the popular vote to his opponent, Hillary Clinton. After the election, in which Trump won the electoral college but lost the popular vote, he tweeted, “in addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”

He later pegged the number of illegal votes, in an unsubstantiated and so far unfounded claim, at three to five million. Kobach, during an interview in January, said, “If you take the whole country,” illegal votes were “probably in excess of a million, if you take the entire country for sure.”

In May, Trump created the Election Integrity Commission to investigate voter fraud during the 2016 election, appointing Kobach, Kansas’ secretary of state, as the commission’s vice chairman. The commission is chaired by Vice President Mike Pence.

Kobach’s Letter

Last Wednesday, Kobach sent a letter to all 50 secretaries of states–even the ones who are not in charge of their state’s voter information. The letter specifically requested:

Publicly-available voter roll data including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, [and] voter history from 2006 onward.

Kobach said the information would be made available to the public, and said states had until July 14 to fork over the information to the commission.

“Yet Another Boondoggle”

As of Monday afternoon, at least 27 states have rebuffed all or parts of Kobach’s request–including Kansas, Kobach’s own state. Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia reacted swiftly to the letter, saying he has “no intention of honoring [Kobach’s] request.” He added in a statement: “Virginia conducts fair, honest, and democratic elections, and there is no evidence of significant voter fraud in Virginia.”

Alex Padilla, California’s secretary of state, said he “will not provide sensitive voter information to a commission that has already inaccurately passed judgment that millions of Californians voted illegally.” Some states have said they would provide Kobach with “publicly available information” like voter rolls, while questioning the commission’s true intentions.

Voting rights advocates have rejected Kobach’s letter as a “propaganda tool” to justify voter suppression ordinances in the future. Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, said:

I have every reason to think that given the shoddy work that Mr. Kobach has done in this area in the past that this is going to be yet another boondoggle and a propaganda tool that tries to inflate the problem of double registration beyond what it actually is.

And on Friday, Kobach himself suggested he could not comply with his own request. In an interview with the Kansas City Star, Kobach said he would not provide the commission with Kansas voters’ Social Security information.

“In Kansas, the Social Security number is not publicly available,” he said. “Every state receives the same letter, but we’re not asking for it if it’s not publicly available.”

Meanwhile, over the weekend, Trump expressed his discontent with the states refusing to comply.

Numerous states are refusing to give information to the very distinguished VOTER FRAUD PANEL. What are they trying to hide?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 1, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Quest to Prove His Claim About Voter Fraud: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down two mapped congressional districts in North Carolina on the grounds that Republican lawmakers drew them with the intention of diluting the African-American vote. In affirming a lower court’s decision, the justices found a narrow–and contentious–distinction between redistricting for political benefit, and redistricting with the intent to harm a certain slice of the electorate based on race.

The case, Cooper v. Harris, was the latest involving racially-motivated gerrymandering to reach the Supreme Court. According to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, state legislatures can redraw congressional districts based on a number of factors, partisanship being the most common. But although race can be one of a smattering of factors when redrawing a state’s districts, it can not be the predominant one.

“The sorting of voters on the grounds of their race remains suspect even if race is meant to function as a proxy for other (including political) characteristics,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion. She was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

The North Carolina districts in question include one of the state’s largest, District 1, and one of its smallest, District 12. Both are currently held by black Democrats, G.K. Butterfield and Alma Adams, respectively. According to Kagan, the Republican-held General Assembly fashioned the new congressional map after the 2010 census to devalue the black vote.

In District 1, after the census, black people of voting age rose from 48.6 percent to 52.7 percent. In District 12, the percentage of voting-age black residents hit 50.7 from 43.8. Republicans argue that tilting the districts majority-black is within their legal limits, because distinguishing the black vote from the Democratic vote–a vast majority of black voters support Democratic candidates–is almost impossible.

Justice Samuel Alito argued that same point in his dissenting opinion: “If around 90 percent of African-American voters cast their ballots for the Democratic candidate, as they have in recent elections, a plan that packs Democratic voters will look very much like a plan that packs African-American voters.”

He added: “If the majority party draws districts to favor itself, the minority party can deny the majority its political victory by prevailing on a racial gerrymandering claim.” Alito was joined in dissent by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court’s newest member, did not participate, because the case was argued on December 5, months before he was confirmed.

The court’s decision was welcome news for Butterfield and Adams. Butterfield said the decision “clearly reaffirms my position that the Republican-controlled state legislature unlawfully used race as the predominant factor” in gerrymandering. And Adams called for an independent redistricting commission in North Carolina, saying, “we should be working together to make access to the ballot box easier and more fair.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Finds Racial Bias in North Carolina Gerrymandering appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

PA AG Goes to Prison

If you like weird political scandals, then boy do I have a doozy for you. You may or may not have heard of Kathleen Kane, the former Attorney General of Pennsylvania. She ran for office to break up the “old boys club” dominating PA politics, but her methods weren’t so pure. She ended up leaking grand jury testimony about one of her rivals (which is illegal) and lying about it to a different grand jury (also super illegal.) She was found guilty of two felony perjury charges and seven misdemeanor counts and resigned from office. She has now been sentenced to 10-23 months in prison.

Former Pa. Attorney General Kathleen Kane leaves in handcuffs after her sentencing at the Montgomery County Courthouse in Norristown. pic.twitter.com/3Zkkld66Nh

— Dan Gleiter (@DanGleiter) October 24, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 27, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.