The ERIC voter registration non-profit says their “sole mission is assisting states to improve the accuracy of voter rolls and increase access to voter registration.” Most now know the first part is just not true. A coordinated effort should be made to collect the reports (lists) that ERIC has been providing its member States. Below is some guidance on why, and how to obtain these lists.
Only until these reports (lists) are analyzed will the public know what’s been happening with those voter rolls.
ERIC provides five types of reports (lists) to their members (below). The members must ask ERIC for each report, as frequently as monthly. But ERIC operates like a secret black box – a State makes a report request, days later their report is ready for download. That election jurisdiction has little idea how these reports were created or if they contain any bias. Under the federal 1993 NVRA law, voter “list maintenance” must be provided to the public. Yet, every ERIC member State refuses public access to these reports.
THE FIVE ERIC REPORT TYPES:
- Eligible residents who have not yet registered to vote. Called “Eligible but Unregistered”.
- Registered voters who voted multiple times in the same election.
- Registered voters who may have died in other States.
- Registered voters with multiple voter ID’s in the members State.
- Registered voters who moved inside the State, move outside and registered in another State, or submitted new NCOA address info to USPS.
List #1 contains the names of “eligible but unregistered voters”. The remaining four reports #2 through #5 help clean the voters rolls. ERIC has made it clear they DO NOT care one iota if a State request these 4 voter roll cleaning reports. A good example of this is Wisconsin. In their first 4.5 years as an ERIC member, WI could have requested 216 reports to clean their voter rolls. They only requested 3. ERIC then hires the lady who oversaw this WI state voter registration mess for 14 years. ERIC does not care if these four lists get requested, or utilized.
But ERIC does care about List #1. It mandates with lengthy contract language that members use List #1. The “eligible unregistered voters” list of people must be solicited to register for voting. Like all the reports, List #1 is created in secrecy by ERIC for each State. What if List #1 was obtained from several States and then found to contain mostly left leaning citizens? This would show ERIC has required States to solicit mostly Democrats for voter registration. What if these lists target demographics, or geographic areas like CTCL did in Wisconsin, or illegal aliens?
Reports #2 through #5 are citizens ERIC suggests be removed from the voter rolls. What if these reports are found to contain mostly right leaning citizens? Above are just a few of the reasons why the ERIC reports must be obtained and analyzed. Also, the ERIC reports #2 through #5 requested by a State must be tested against voter rolls dated after those reports. This will show if ERIC reports are actually being applied to those voter rolls.
ACTION STEPS:
The Public Interest Legal Foundation has sued DC, Alaska, Colorado, and Louisiana to obtain specific ERIC “list maintenance” reports. This letter asking Alaska for ERIC reports is a good template to contact the other 27 ERIC member States. Ask those election officials for ERIC “list maintenance” data from 2016 onward, or whatever is available. The information in Exhibits A, B, and C can help your group get up to speed. The Alaska letter asks only for deceased voters lists. However, you should demand all reports your State has obtained from ERIC, especially the “Eligible but Unregistered” voter report.
WHY STATES DON’T RELEASE ERIC REPORTS:
Election officials hide behind their ERIC contract that says the release of reports requires a court order. This “Becker” type language was included so election officials can keep serfs and peasants from accessing the truth. No reputable lawyer for State election officials should have allowed this language in any ERIC contract. It violates the Public Disclosure Provision of the 1993 NVRA Act. Make your election officials go on record protecting reports from the 3 employee ERIC non-profit.
Or election officials can follow the federal Public Disclosure Provision of the of 1993 National Voter Registration Act. As one court stated in 2018, the Public Disclosure Provision was crafted to “ensure election officials fulfill their list maintenance duties”. The law clearly conveys “It was Congress intention that the public monitor the voter rolls and adequacy of election officials list maintenance programs”. They also say the list maintenance data must be “made available to any member of the public”.
Some election officials claim the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) prevents releasing any ERIC lists. This too is a slight of hand to fend off the peasants. The State provide ERIC their public Voter Registration data and also their privacy protected DMV/MVD data. The ERIC system merges the two together to create a better voter profile. The member State allowed the data to be comingled in the first place, so they can unmingled it too. They only need to delete the data columns that contain privacy info like DL# or SS#, then release it to the public.
ALTERNATIVES TO ERIC:
Election jurisdictions can leave ERIC and deploy almost the identical technology themselves. The data matching software used by ERIC is available as a free trial from Senzing, but then requires a few hundred $$ monthly subscription fee. Jurisdictions can obtain USPS licenses for NCOALink and access change of address data directly from USPS. Oddly, only 30 states require the use of NCOA.
Election jurisdictions can go through the NIST LADMF certification process and access the Death Master File from the SSA. Many organizations like Ancestry.com have this access, as does ERIC. Enhanced alternatives to cleaning voter rolls include newer integrity services like the Fractal Voter Registry system out of Texas. FPEIS has tremendous potential, including daily monitoring of voter registration systems to catch anomalies. The FPEIS team found that many SOS offices simply don’t know how bad their voter rolls are. Below are some “Micro-Apps” they use help detect registration fraud.
The original goal of “Pew Center on The States” and David Becker was to capture those 50 million unregistered “residents” as Democrat voters. A republican pollster was brought in to create the story line. The same pollster ran John McCain’s 2008 Presidential run. Around 2011 Pew and Becker hired pollster Bill McInturff and his Public Opinion Strategies company. POS created the language, polls, graphs, and spin needed to sell “voter modernization” to our States. It was a grand plan to help blue States, and create more of them.
McInturff, Becker, and others traveled America to convince States to join ERIC. They also pitched online voter registration, an essential part of their plan. They explained it reduces fraud, costs 83¢ to process paper registration, versus 3¢ online. They highlight Canada’s efficient system with 93% of citizens registered, while America lagged with 75%. They never mention free will, personal voter responsibility, or that Americans have the right NOT to participate in politics. The left just doesn’t see it that way. Our America’s voter rolls are now less secure, more corrupt, and more bloated.
McInturff tests phrases and language to determine what works best to created the desired poll outcome. In 2011 David Becker lead a dozen people from 5 companies to pitch “voter modernization” to California officials. His team was selling ERIC and online voter registration. One sharp CA county official did his homework. He asked if they purposely avoided “privacy” only because it didn’t poll well. Instead of being honest, David Becker tried to spin a lawyerly response. The meeting fell flat on its face. The audience no doubt realized these hand-picked lackey’s would say just about anything. California determined their existing privacy laws protecting their citizens were paramount. CA never joined ERIC.
