Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap fields a phone call during one of several election day stops, to see how the polling process is going, at the Merrill Auditorium Rehearsal Hall voting location in Portland on Tuesday, November 8, 2016. Dunlap has filed a suit against the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity for allegedly violating the Federal Advisory Commission Act. (Photo: Carl D. Walsh / Portland Press Herald via Getty Images)
A Democratic member of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity filed suit against the commission in federal court in Washington, DC on Thursday morning, alleging that its Republican leadership has intentionally excluded him from deliberations and violated federal transparency laws. The commission has been sued more times (eight, including the new filing) than it has officially convened for meetings (two times).
The suit, filed by Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, accuses the commission of violating the Federal Advisory Commission Act, which, among other things, requires that advisory committees be bipartisan and sets transparency requirements for them. “Everything we are doing is absolutely perpendicular to that,” Dunlap charged in an interview. “We aren’t inviting the public to participate. We aren’t transparent. And we aren’t even working together at all. My real fear is that this commission will offer policy recommendations that have not been properly vetted by all of the commissioners.”
The complaint contends Dunlap “has been, and continues to be, blocked from receiving Commission documents necessary to carry out his responsibilities” despite repeated requests to be included. It asserts that Dunlap is moving forward with the lawsuit “reluctantly” in order to prevent the commission from “becoming exactly the kind of one-sided, partisan undertaking the Federal Advisory Committee Act was designed to prohibit.”
The commission shouldn’t be surprised by the suit, said Austin Evers, executive director of American Oversight, an advocacy group that is representing Dunlap in the suit. Dunlap has written to the commission multiple times, asking them to address his grievances. “We think the commission is on more than enough notice they are not living up to their obligations,” Evers said, adding that he hopes to avoid a protracted legal battle.
In a statement, a spokesperson for Kris Kobach, the commission’s co-chair and the Republican secretary of state for Kansas, called Dunlap’s lawsuit “baseless and paranoid.” The statement asserted that the commission’s work has been “stalled” by lawsuits, the arrest of a staff member on child pornography charges, and the death of one commissioner. “It is not at all surprising that Commission staff were very busy during this period,” the statement noted. “Ironically, Dunlap’s lawsuit is only going to increase the workload faced by Commission staff and Department of Justice Attorneys.”
Kobach’s statement addressed just a small number of Dunlap’s allegations. For example, it asserted that it was “incorrect” that Kobach excluded Dunlap from communications “between September 12 and October 17”; the bulk of Dunlap’s complaints predate that period. For example, email records filed with a federal court by the Department of Justice show Kobach repeatedly discussed commission business in June with a handful of people without including other commissioners. Most notably, Kobach drafted a controversial letter to states requesting publicly available voter rolls with input from Hans von Spakovsky and J. Christian Adams, two Republicans who only joined the commission afterwards. Those discussions didn’t include other commissioners.
Dunlap asserted that the remainder of the commission was made aware of Kobach’s intent to send the letter only hours before states received copies. The suit claims this “deprived Secretary Dunlap of the opportunity to consult with other members of the Commission or to formulate and express his views as to the legality or propriety of this action.”
Dunlap asked Andrew Kossack, the executive director of the commission, for copies of this and other correspondence in a letter on Oct. 17 and again in a follow-up email on Nov. 1. Dunlap asserted that he has not been provided anything in response. (Kossack has not replied to past questions from ProPublica on this point.)
Among the other claims in the suit are contentions that the commission’s record-retention practices are lax and its use of personal email accounts presents data security risks.
The suit also claims the commission has not communicated with Dunlap since it last met in mid-September, including about plans for any future meetings. However, other commissioners and even outside groups have spoken publicly about such plans. On Oct. 19, for example, the conservative Minnesota Voters Alliance announced in a fundraising email that it had been “invited to speak at the December 2017 meeting of the ‘Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.'”
Dunlap, who said he was unaware of any such meeting, emailed Kossack on Oct. 25 to ask who had invited the group. Kossack, whose job is to run the commission’s operations, stated that he didn’t know. “I have never communicated with this group, and no meeting is scheduled for December,” he wrote in an Oct. 27 email to Dunlap, a copy of which was provided to ProPublica. Said Dunlap: “If the executive director of this commission doesn’t know what his commissioners are planning, that’s a sign of bigger problems. I think that really means we’ve gone off the rails.” (The Minnesota Voters Alliance has not responded to questions from ProPublica.)
Finally, Dunlap’s suit claims the commission’s purported bipartisanship is just “a facade,” a contention Dunlap has repeatedly made since the release of a now notorious email penned by von Spakovsky in February. “There isn’t a single Democratic official that will do anything other than obstruct any investigation of voter fraud,” von Spakovsky wrote, adding that if Democrats or “mainstream Republicans” were named to the commission, it would be an “abject failure.”
In a recent interview with The Hill, von Spakovsky defended the email, asserting it was part of a “private conversation.” He also stated that he believes he is getting along with the Democrats on the commission. “So far, at least, it seems like we’ve worked well together,” he said.
Countered Dunlap: “I just laughed when I read that. We aren’t working together at all.”
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
After the election, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy