Kobach helped lead Trump’s election panel. A judge just found him in contempt in a voter ID case

Kobach helped lead Trump’s election panel. A judge just found him in contempt in a voter ID case

In a nice case of irony, the man Trump tapped to lead his witch hunt voter fraud panel was just found in contempt in a voter ID case.

A federal judge has found Kansas’s chief elections official, Kris Kobach — a Republican who helped lead the much-criticized commission set up by President Trump to investigate supposed voter fraud — in contempt of court in a sharply worded ruling that said Kobach acted “disingenuously” and that ordered him to pay damages for the opposing team’s attorney fees.

The order stems from a 2016 lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Kansas voters in federal court against a state voter ID law. The 2013 law requires people to provide proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, when they registered to vote for the first time. The ACLU argues that the law violates the federal National Voter Registration Act, which requires state DMVs to offer people the ability to register with only the “minimum amount of information necessary.”

U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson issued a preliminary injunction in 2016 blocking the law and asked that the registrations of some 18,000 people whose materials had been held be notified with a postcard confirming their registration and polling place, as other voters are in Kansas.

But the ACLU recently charged that many voters had failed to receive the postcard; one man who has joined the lawsuit, Charles Stricker, who had been affected by the law, testified that even after the injunction he had been told that the legal issues about the right of people like himself to vote were “up in the air.”

Robinson sided with the ACLU’s January motion to hold Kobach, Kansas’s secretary of state, in contempt for the failures, as the court had ordered him previously to comply.

Apparently the case deals with a 2013 law that the ACLU feels is a violation of the federal National Voter Registration Act, but this contempt charge isn't about that violation. So the law requires a postcard be sent out to verify the person is able to vote, except a bunch of people haven't been receiving them. The article names one Charles Stricker who had been told that his right to vote was "up in the air" for the reason he didn't receive a card in time for the 2016 election.

The judge was having none of this malarkey and told Kobach to issue the postcard. He didn't. So guess what happened (well you don't have to guess if you read the title of the thread)? Contempt!

In her ruling, in which she said twice that Kobach acted “disingenuously,” Robinson wrote that she found “clear and convincing evidence” that he had disobeyed the preliminary injunction.

“Kansans have come to expect these postcards to confirm their registration status, and Defendant ensured the Court on the record that they had been sent prior to the 2016 general election,” Robinson wrote. “They were not, and the fact that he sent a different notice to those voters does not wholly remove the contempt.”

Robinson also wrote of evidence that Kobach “willfully failed to make sure that the county election officials were clearly and effectively trained to enforce” the voting rules enforced by the injunction.

“The official training manual for the counties continued to instruct that all voter registration applicants were required to submit DPOC [documented proof of citizenship] and his efforts to revise these instructions informally and in a piecemeal way led to confusion and misinformation.”

It's really nice to see justice play out against these thugs trying to suppress votes, and Kobach is at the forefront of trying to suppress votes. Unfortunately the law wasn't overturned yet, but small steps. Ruining this man's political career will prevent him from trying to erroneously accuse the entire nation of voter fraud. So at least there is that. Kansas, take heart and don't vote this man as your Governor.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

#SwampLife #WhoInWashingtonHasIntegrity ? #NotSurprised

On a somewhat related note (related because it also has to do with alleged hypocrisy and corruption), I'm still waiting for any updates on the investigations regarding Kushner and his business dealings

a reply to: Krazysh0t

A political figure got caught being a hypocrite?

Only irony I find hear is the Justice system having the balls to confront it.

More please!

Wouldn't it only be irony if he commited voter fraud?
He was charged with disobeying a judge's ruling that says people didn't require as much proof as the 2013 law.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
In a nice case of irony, the man Trump tapped to lead his witch hunt voter fraud panel was just found in contempt in a voter ID case.

Where's the irony? Sounds like he was trying to fight voter fraud in Kansas. Why would someone not choose him to lead a fraud panel?

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Well that's an interesting twist. Denying someone the right to vote is "fighting voter fraud".

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Interesting.

I'm a big fan of the rule of law, so if he didn't do what he was ordered to do, then he should be held in contempt, as he was.

What is missing from the article, though, is any real info on the "different notice" sent out to the affected voters that the judge says "does not wholly remove the contempt charge."

So, what was sent out instead, and how did it differ from what he was ordered to send out? These things matter in the grand scheme of things, because if he was acting in good faith to do what he was told, but sent something out that didn't satisfy exactly what was ordered, that's different than him blatantly ignoring the judge's order and just doing whatever he wants to do.

But it sounds like he's a rather "iffy" fella, so I'm probably going to err on the side of caution with the judge that he was blatantly ignoring the original order and just doing what he wanted to do, hoping that it would appease the judge.

At least the ACLU, at the very bottom of the story, admits that there have been instances of non-citizens registering and actually voting in that state, so Mr. Kobach's concerns are not unjustified, regardless of what you think of his tactics.

Two of Kobach’s witnesses have said that since 2000 Kansas has identified 127 people who are believed to be noncitizens when they registered or attempted to register, the ACLU said. The ACLU said that only 11 are believed to have actually cast a ballot.

We must remember that we only know about those who get caught. In any event, they will be appealing this contempt-of-court ruling, so we'll see how that goes.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This law was passed in 2013 and requires people to have actual documentation that they are citizens before registering to vote for the first time.

That's hardly, as you put it, "deny[ing] someone the right to vote." Maybe it's making it a slightly bigger PITA to get registered the first time, but in my opinion, registering SHOULD be a process where you prove citizenship your first time registering...

...you know, since being a citizen is a constitutional requirement to being eligible to vote.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Here's some additional information from The Kansas City Star:

In 2016, Robinson ordered Kobach to fully register thousands of Kansas voters who had registered at the DMV but had failed to provide proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport, as required by a Kansas law that Kobach crafted.

Robinson had earlier scolded Kobach for initially informing the voters covered by her order that they were registered only for the 2016 election and for failing to ensure that they receive the same postcard notifications about their registration as other voters.

Robinson told Kobach during a 2016 telephone conference that she would hold him responsible for directing counties to send out these postcards. He promised to do his best and narrowly dodged a contempt hearing in 2016 because of this agreement.

“He admitted several times during the hearing that he understood the Court’s order meant he was to treat those covered by the preliminary injunction the same as all other registered voters, which included sending the standard postcard upon registration,” Robinson said in Wednesday’s order.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion in January asking the judge to hold Kobach in contempt and to impose sanctions for failing to send the postcards and failing to update the state’s election manual.

"(Kobach) was in contempt of the court order, but he also has just demonstrated this pattern of non-compliance with the federal law and disregard for the very idea that citizens have a right to participate in their democracy," said Micah Kubic, executive director of the ACLU of Kansas.

Robinson later added in Wednesday’s ruling that “Defendant is now in the process of sending the standard postcards to all registered voters.”

About the judge:

She has also served as a member of the Emily Taylor Center for Women and Gender Equity.

About Emily Taylor Center for Women and Gender Equity:
Our Mission
The mission of the Emily Taylor Center for Women & Gender Equity (ETC) at the University of Kansas is to provide leadership and advocacy in promoting gender equity and challenge gender-related barriers which impede full access, inclusion, and success. Approaching our work from a social justice lens, we raise awareness of critical issues, provide opportunities to translate awareness into action, and empower individuals to advocate for themselves and others.

So, it would seem to me that this judge will follow lock step anything progressive and was potentially asked to find something wrong with this guy. It seems to me that this is just more of the same partisan nonsense that is par for course these days...

And no, I do not care if she is a judge. Why do people pretend that judges are these fault free deities anyway? They are human beings.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The problem is that these people DID register and he was told to send out the postcards saying they could vote before the 2016 election, but didn't. The additional source I just posted explains that he was aware of this requirement too.

a reply to: Fools

and was potentially asked to find something wrong with this guy.

Do you have a source for this claim?

originally posted by: Fools
About the judge:

She has also served as a member of the Emily Taylor Center for Women and Gender Equity.

About Emily Taylor Center for Women and Gender Equity:
Our Mission
The mission of the Emily Taylor Center for Women & Gender Equity (ETC) at the University of Kansas is to provide leadership and advocacy in promoting gender equity and challenge gender-related barriers which impede full access, inclusion, and success. Approaching our work from a social justice lens, we raise awareness of critical issues, provide opportunities to translate awareness into action, and empower individuals to advocate for themselves and others.

So, it would seem to me that this judge will follow lock step anything progressive and was potentially asked to find something wrong with this guy. It seems to me that this is just more of the same partisan nonsense that is par for course these days...

And no, I do not care if she is a judge. Why do people pretend that judges are these fault free deities anyway? They are human beings.

First: Where is your proof?

Second: Your weak character assassination doesn't automatically redeem Kobach's actions here.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So, he's in contempt because they didn't send out the standard registration postcard--I can see that, but my question still is, what exactly did he send out instead? That their registration was only limited to the 2016 election?

That seems like a very odd thing to send out--I mean, if you're registered, you're registered for ALL elections.

This all comes across as underhanded, for sure, regardless of my opinion as to the veracity of asking for proof-of-citizenship documents at initial registration.

You say that he was required to send out notice that they were registered for the 2016 election--your source specifically says that he did that. What it's saying is the he did NOT send out the standard registration notice along with that, and I think that's where the judge is getting him on contempt.

It does, however, note that his office is sending out those standard notices, it's just stupid that it takes a contempt charge to do something so easy (and, apparently, standard).

Information is still vague, though, because it doesn't say how those who he said were only registered for the 2016 election were notified of that.

ETA: I'm only focusing on this detail because, having been a paralegal and in the courtroom when judges have done some relatively petty things to make a point, I'm just wondering how far off from the standard notification these other notifications were. That still doesn't absolve Kobach of doing that which he claimed he understood was necessary by court order, I'm just trying to satisfy my own curiosity.

Thanks for the additional link and info.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

According to the WaPo source in the OP the man, Charles Stricker, was told that his right to vote was "up in the air". I can't seem to find anything that shows exactly what Kobach sent out to these people though.

Charles Stricker, who had been affected by the law, testified that even after the injunction he had been told that the legal issues about the right of people like himself to vote were “up in the air.”

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't think that's a quote from the notification, I think that's a quote from Mr. Stricker's understanding from what he was given. Maybe it referenced the fact that they could vote at the moment because a temporary injunction had been lifted per judge's order, but that the case was ongoing and that this was a temporary issue at the moment.

I could see how something like that would confuse people, but being the way that I am, I probably would have sent something out with TMI on it as well, hoping to fully educate people.

But, yes, I'd really love to see what was sent out, if anything, or hear the recording if it was a robocall.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well I linked to a pdf of a transcript of the telephone conference mentioned in the Kansas City paper source.

Why are we letting people who are too uneducated to get a proof of citizenship make an educated decision on whom they vote for? I mean really there should be at least a 4th-grade education required to vote. Heck, most of these people don't know how to read. How do they vote?

I'm surprised anyone would admit their too stupid to get proof in the general public?

a reply to: introvert

Of course I don't, but lets not be children. I have been alive long enough to know the games we all play.

a reply to: Saiker

This literally has nothing to do with the OP or anyone mentioned in it, but to answer your question:
15th Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]