Voter fraud commission may have violated law
Electoral fraud committee for President Trump could have violated the law by ignoring the federal requirements governing state investigations, several experts in the process of regulating The Hill.
Experts say that failure to submit the request to the States through the Bureau of Information and Regulatory Affairs (ARTI) of the Office of Administration and Budget violates a 1980 Act known as the Procedural Redress Act (PRA). They also say that the ruling could be significant, since states could argue that this means that they have no obligation to respond.
“If the commission is severely with them, I think States have the right to say,” No, we do not have to respond because we have not looked [ARTI], “said Susan Dudley, a former ARTI director is now director of the Center Of GW Regulatory Studies at George Washington University.
The Presidential Advisory Commission on Electoral Integrity called on voters 50 and the District of Columbia to gather detailed information last week about their constituencies, including full names and addresses, registration of political parties and the last four social security numbers .
The application is part of the panel’s work is to promote fair and honest federal election.
It was formed after Trump said he lost popular vote in last year’s presidential election to Hillary Clinton because of widespread electoral fraud, an argument rejected by representatives of the two party elections.
Several states have responded to the angry demands, saying they represent an excessive overshoot of the federal government. Forty-four states, led by Republican and Democratic Governments and the District of Columbia is already resistant to information, according to multiple information.
Once a first version of this article was published online, the White House in an email argued that the election commission was free from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, which requires federal agencies to take the exact measurements Before making requests for public information. The reason is simple, according to a spokesperson: the commission is not an agency.
“The law on reducing bureaucracy applies only to information collection agencies,” Marc Lotter, a spokeswoman for Pence vice president, said in an e-mail. “The Commission is an entity that” only serves to advise and assist the President, “and therefore is not a PRA reserve agency.
Experts interviewed by The Hill said they believed the commission was under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a 1980 law that requires federal agencies to seek public input, even during a comment period, before making a request for information.
An amendment of 1995 extended the ARTI to include not only requests for information for the government, but also requests for information to the public.
There are exceptions to the paperwork requirements, but Richard Belzer, a former ARTI economist, said in an e-mail to The Hill that he did not remember Trump’s order, which includes a provision that exempts the commission to meet the requirements.
Belzer said it would be unprecedented for ARTI to be subject to approval or issue of an exemption, at the request of the White House, but argued that this would be “legally questionable” in this matter.
The Procedures Reduction Act defines the “agency” in a very broad manner and only exempts the Office’s consultation of the responsibility of the government and the Federal Election Commission from having to comply with the requirements of the law.
Therefore, the electoral commission and the type of information it requires are covered.
The law requires agencies to justify their requests for public information, specify how they will be used and provide assurances that data will be protected.
The law also requires agencies to estimate the number of hours that entities are required to meet.
When an application is submitted, the documents receive a control or reference number from the Office of Management and Budget. Unmarked, it appeared in the Commission’s letter to the United States, which has led several experts in the process to wonder if the process had been carried out.