Crying Wolf Over an Advisory Commission

Election Integrity opponents and Democrat activists have filed a flurry of lawsuits against the Presidential Election Integrity Commission.  So far those lawsuits have done little but waste time and taxpayer money.  

As the Washington Post reported (emphasis ours): 

[Judge Colleen] Kollar-Kotelly, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1997, ruled against the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a watchdog group that sought to block the commission’s data request because the panel had not conducted a full privacy impact statement as required by a 2002 federal law for new government electronic data collection systems.

She concluded that although the watchdog group had the right to sue under the law for a privacy review, the commission was a presidential advisory panel, not a federal agency subject to the privacy law.

“Neither the Commission or the Director of White House Information Technology — who is currently charged with collecting voter roll information on behalf of the Commission — are ‘agencies’ ” of the federal government subject to the court’s review in this matter, Kollar-Kotelly wrote.

“To the extent the factual circumstances change, however — for example, if the . . . powers of the Commission expand beyond those of a purely advisory body — this determination may need to be revisited.”

And that is just it, the Election Integrity Commission is just advisory and making recommendations to improve our elections.  Liberal election Integrity deniers and many establishment Democrats continue to oppose any efforts to take a bipartisan look at improving our election process.  

So the Democrats go to court to sue to stop an Advisory Commission from merely meeting and thus continue to undermine our election process.  And yesterday marked their second failure on the lawsuit front.  Earlier the same Bill Clinton appointed judge stated (emphasis ours):

Kollar-Kotelly's ruling said there was no sign that the commission's procedures were impeding public debate about its actions, particularly a hotly-debated request that states turn over public voter registration data for study by the panel. . . .

"The regulations anticipate that some advisory committee meetings will be made publicly accessible via internet access, and that this is permissible so long as this method is 'reasonably accessible to the public,' and can accommodate 'a reasonable number of interested members of the public," the judge wrote.

"Based on Defendants’ representations, the livestreaming service offered for the July 19 meeting appears likely to satisfy both of these requirements, and indeed will offer more members of the public the opportunity to observe proceedings than had only physical access been permitted."

As EIC Vice Chair Kris Kobach stated:

"We are not surprised by the ruling because the lawsuit itself was a perfect example of partisan special interest groups looking to prevent a bipartisan commission from conducting a public meeting to discuss how best to improve our election system," Kobach said in a statement. "To prevent the meeting would have only served the purpose of preventing the public from learning information that they have every right to know about the integrity of elections in this country."

Which begs the question President Trump asked at the first Election Integrity Commission hearing: "What are they worried about?  There’s something.  There always is."