By Kimberly Morin
On Friday, New Hampshire Representative Carol Shea-Porter wrote a letter addressed to both Governor Sununu and Secretary of State Bill Gardner requesting they do not comply with the Presidential Advisory Commission’s request for New Hampshire’s voter database. Voter information is already public information that anyone can freely review. Lists of voter information are provided to political parties who also sell that information to presidential campaigns. There is nothing ominous in the request but Democrats are claiming it’s the end of the world.
Secretary Gardner is a Democrat who actually sits on the Election Commission. He is well regarded in the state as an authority on election law by both parties. Democrats are claiming there is something nefarious at play even though voter information is already public.
The commission is not asking for any information that isn’t already available. In fact, it is written in New Hampshire Election Law that the Secretary of State can share voter database information with other states for the “purpose of comparing duplicate voter information with other states.” From RSA 654:45:
The secretary of state may enter into an agreement to share voter information or data from the statewide centralized voter registration database for the purpose of comparing duplicate voter information with other states or groups of states. The secretary of state shall only provide information that is necessary for matching duplicate voter information with other states and shall take precautions to make sure that information in the database is secure in a manner consistent with RSA 654:45, VI. The secretary of state may solicit input from the department of safety and the department of information technology and shall ensure that any information or data shared between the agencies that is of a confidential nature remains confidential.
Voter Database information
28 states have already been sharing this information since 2006 and as a result have discovered over 7 million duplicate voters registered across different states. There was other information discovered thanks to the voter database sharing as well like invalid social security numbers and missing information:
The newest data is from crosschecks of voter registrations across 28 states that participate in the program. At least 7.2 million registrations appeared in two states at once, according to the data.
Nearly 68,000 registered voters across the 28 states had “invalid” dates of birth, a category that include missing, incomplete, or placeholder birth dates, which can reflect older records before dates of birth were kept on file.
The program also found 32,000 registered voters who appeared to have invalid Social Security Numbers tied to their voter records, which can result either from clerical mistakes or fraud.
In a letter sent to every state, the commission is asking for voter database information that is available within the state. Each state has some differences in what they gather for information like the last four digits of a voter’s social security number. New Hampshire does not require this information when registering to vote and therefore would not provide that information to the commission:
I am requesting that you provide to the Commission the publicly available voter roll data for [state], 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, voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward, active/inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding voter registration in another state, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information.
The commission is only asking for information that is already publicly available in a state’s voter database. Felony convictions are also public information. In some states, felons lose their right to vote until certain conditions are met after supervised release has been completed, meaning incarceration, parole and/or probation. They simply have to re-register to vote.
Democrats sell the same voter information
What’s ironic is the Democrats fought to be able to sell information from the New Hampshire voter database in 2007. Democrats were apparently getting $65,000 to sell voter database lists to presidential campaigns back then. The price is probably much higher now but their hypocrisy is priceless:
New Hampshire’s Democratic Party can use voter information from a state database to update its list being sold to five presidential campaigns for $65,000 each, a superior court judge ruled Tuesday.
Party spokeswoman Pia Carusone said the party has contracts with Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and Chris Dodd, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former Sen. John Edwards, for $325,000.
“There’s a long history in New Hampshire Democratic Party providing voter list to campaigns,” she said.
Carusone said the party has had a database for years which it enhances and checks for updates against other databases, such as a national database for changes of address. The new information will simply update and add to that list, she said.
She said the party makes a profit, but could not say how much since work updating the list is ongoing.
Apparently, selling the very same voter database information for profit is okay with Democrats but checking that same data for duplicate registrations and possible voter fraud isn’t okay. Of course, it makes absolutely zero sense but this is “Resistance Summer” party who simply “resist” anything and everything from the Trump Administration. It doesn’t seem to matter that New Hampshire’s own Secretary of State is on the commission.
Why exactly are Democrats so opposed to the commission weeding out duplicate voter registrations and potential voter fraud? If voter fraud doesn’t exist, as Democrats claim, then the commission will verify their claims. New Hampshire Democrats fought to sell the very same voter information that the commission is asking for, why are they opposed to providing the commission with this information?