Krebs joins Dem Secretaries of State to refuse voter fraud probe

From the Associated Press/US News & World Report, apparently Secretary of State & Republican Congressional candidate Shantel Krebs is joining Democrat Secretaries of State to refuse sharing information with a national voter fraud probe which is seeking to determine whether allegations of widespread voter fraud are in fact true:

The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity on Wednesday gave secretaries of state about two weeks to provide about a dozen points of data. That request includes names, party affiliations, addresses and voting histories of all voters. It also includes birthdates, the last four digits of voters’ Social Security numbers and any information about felony convictions and military status.

Krebs spokesman Jason Williams said in an email to The Associated Press that she “will not share voter information with the commission.”

Several Democratic secretaries of state had already said they would refuse to share the data. Trump has alleged, without evidence, that millions voted illegally in the 2016 elections. Democrats and voting rights groups have called the commission a sham.

Read it all here.

As opposed to Krebs’ current blanket refusal, a couple of other Republicans concerned about certain aspects of the request have indicated they are willing to comply on a modified basis:

The White House bristled Friday at states refusing to cooperate with the commission.

“I think that that is mostly political stunt,” Huckabee Sanders said when asked about the pushback. “This is a commission that’s asking for publicly available data and the fact that these governors wouldn’t be willing to turn that over – this is something that has been part of the commission’s discussion, which has bipartisan support and none of the members raised any concern whatsoever.”

Other states have said that they do plan to hand over information, albeit less than the broad sweep outlined in the letters. Wisconsin’s elections commission administrator said that the state would give the public information for the standard $12,500 fee, but was not allowed to release other details such as dates of birth. Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, a Republican, said his state would be handing over most of the requested information – noting that it is publicly available – though he said they would not provide portions of Social Security numbers and driver’s license numbers because those are not.

Read that here.

What are your thoughts about the South Dakota Secretary of State refusing the Commission’s request, or the probe itself?

96 Replies to “Krebs joins Dem Secretaries of State to refuse voter fraud probe”

  1. Thomas

    I don’t have a problem with her refusal. The request was overly broad and we lose control over how the voter information is to be used, who has access to it and where it ends up once it is released. While I do believe that there are people casting votes, dead, multiple votes or otherwise, I do not believe that it is so pervasive as to influence the outcomes of national elections. Shantel is simply protecting our state’s rights, as she should.

    1. Anonymous

      Show specifics. Why should Krebs give social security numbers to the feds? I don’t remember SD having fraud problems like California, N.Y. or Illinois.

      The feds already abuse power with NSA.

      Good for her protecting our liberties. Republicans could use her libertarian streak more often instead of more Bush types.

      I love Trump also but this is too broad. Especially in a state that didn’t have any issues.

    2. Anonymous

      What does she have to hide? With all the corruption that takes place in South Dakota I’m not surprised that our Secretary of State is not willing to release public information.

      1. Anonymous

        Social security numbers and drivers license numbers are not public. I don’t think state law allows her to.

        1. Anonymous

          I’m confused, why can she sell the voter information but not give it to the Presidential Commission on voter fraud? This looks like someone not telling the truth.

      2. Anonymous

        I think we should be calling our legislators and asking them to tell our Secretary of State to participating in Trump’s election review.

    3. Anonymous

      I disagree this is public information that should be released if there’s no voter fraud then why not release the information? Why can’t South Dakota’s Secretary of State be honest? With all the corruption and fraud that takes place in South Dakota government this makes me worry about our elections.

        1. Anonymous

          If the voter list is so private and can’t be shared why does she have it advertised for sale on her website?

    4. Anonymous

      This isn’t Russia. We are supposed to have elections that are free of voter fraud and not manipulated by one person in power. There should be a review of our elections by a government commission every year to make sure voter fraud didn’t happen. If she doesn’t want to release this information it makes me worry.

    5. Anonymous

      I’m so sorry but if you’re so dumb that you don’t think the federal government doesn’t have your SS number then apparently you don’t file taxes. If you don’t think she should release that information based on your tax ID number then you’re completely misinformed.

  2. Thomas

    And I object to the misleading headline that she “joined democrats”. Her decision was most likely based on her desire to protect SD voters and safeguard our information, whereas, the democrat decisions were merely political obstruction aimed at protecting their illegal voting base and giving the finget to President Trump. Business as usual for the left.

    1. Pat Powers Post author

      And you based that on your psychic mind reading abilities?

      Otherwise, the headline appears to have been spot on.

      1. duggersd

        I read an article recently that the e-mail to send the data to is not secure. http://gizmodo.com/trumps-election-fraud-commission-asked-states-to-send-s-1796535568
        I can see how there are certain things that are public knowledge that can be sent and sensitive information such as SS numbers and drivers license numbers should be redacted. Name, address, party affiliation I believe are public, right? And DID I have to provide a SS number and drivers license number to register? I really do not remember.

    2. Anonymous

      I agree with Thomas. Pretty misleading headline designed to mislead. She has the right position.

      1. Pat Powers Post author

        You might not like it, but you’re not entitled to “alternate facts.” The cited article points out who is refusing, and it says what it says.

    3. Anonymous

      Thomas sounds like her staff defending her. This was a big mistake and she will lose vote to Dusty over this one.

      1. Anonymous

        If Shantel won’t support President Trump on the issue of investigating voter fraud, what else won’t she support him on?

        Make America Great Again – Vote Dusty Johnson!

  3. Anonymous

    Either she supports the president’s investigation, or she’s a Hillary Clinton/Bernie Sanders liberal obstructionist. There is no middle ground.

  4. DT

    “What we’ve experienced in Mitchell is a deficiency in the system I’ve talked about for a number of years,” said Secretary of State Jason Gant, “which is the possibility that voters can vote by absentee ballot and can later vote on Election Day.”

    Gant said the use of computerized vote centers would prevent intentional or accidental double voting. Vote centers utilize computerized poll books that are electronically connected.

    “Vote Centers and electronic poll books would have prevented this from even being a possible fraud,” Gant said.

    http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/news/crime/1560136-official-double-vote-exposes-flaw-system

    Since coming into office, Krebs has dumped electronic poll books, and now she won’t cooperate in a federal investigation of voter fraud. I’m starting to see a picture of Jason Gant like the ones of George Bush with the caption that says “Miss me yet?”

  5. Anonymous

    Thank you Krebs for protecting SD voters.

    This is very much like the NSA overreach. At some point there has to be a reason and citizens have to push back. ND also is refusing and Indiana. Those are republicans also.

    1. Anony

      This is public information, you are miss informed if you think it’s not. How you vote is protected if you vote is not. It’s redicudlious to think otherwise.

      1. Anonymous

        Social security numbers? Kobach said he will make all info given to the commission public. Read his statement in ap.

  6. Anony

    Thanks for projecting the appearance of voter fraud. Turn over the data it’s public information that is bought and sold every election cycle.

  7. Troy Jones

    I am confused. There are concerns of widespread voter fraud. This concern impacts the citizenry’s confidence in their Republican Democracy. The President announces an effort to investigate. Our Secretary of State, whose first obligation is the protection of the integrity of elections, says in a comprehensive way our Secretary of State’s office will not cooperate.

    Without greater explanation from the SOS of the rationale of not cooperating*, this appears to be a dereliction of duty by the Secretary of State.

    *. The assertion we are being protected by not releasing date of birth and Social Security information is BS. That information is shared between taxing authorities, social service, Medicare/Medicaid, Education, and a host of other agencies all the time (and hospitals and insurance companies). If she is going to make up an excuse, this is so lame a a truck can be driven trough it.

    1. Anonymous

      Troy,

      You are misinformed. State law does not allow the Secretary of State to share the info:

      12-4-41. Any information obtained from the statewide voter registration file or any county voter registration file may be used or sold only for election purposes, may not be used for any commercial purpose, and may not be placed for unrestricted access on the internet. For the purpose of this section, the term, commercial purpose, does not include campaign or political polling activities. Any violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor. In addition to any criminal sanctions, the court may impose a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars for each violation. Any civil penalty collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited in the general fund.

      12-4-9
      However, public access to social security numbers and driver license numbers contained in the master registration file shall be prohibited. Public access to each voter’s day and month of birth shall be restricted.

  8. Anonymous

    The only reason not to release this data would be because you have something to hide. I believe that she will end up releasing this information because if she doesn’t she’s going to get a lot of bad press over this.

  9. Anonymous

    She’s too busy running for Congress to bother to do her job as Secretary of State. She’s getting a paycheck from the taxpayers to run for her next office this is a bunch of bull.

  10. The State Capitol Building

    Why is Jason Williams’ car always parked in Shantel’s parking space at the Capitol?

    Is she biking over from Fort Pierre, or is he trying to make it look like someone is there when she’s spending all her time out campaigning?

      1. Emoluments Clause

        When I first read TSCB’s comment, I though it said Jay Williams’…???….
        😉

  11. Emoluments Clause

    As a Democrat, I support President Trump’s investigation into possible voter fraud in this country. And I think we should begin the investigation right here in South Dakota as an example by cross referencing the voting behaviorisms of all of the “RV” voters we have in South Dakota to see if they are registered in any other states too, and whether they are voting in those other states as well… 😉

    Did you know, that 5% of all of the voters in Minnehaha County in the last election were “RV” voters? Or that there is a campsite in Sioux Falls, which has 100 camping sites, but a 1000 “RV” voters assigned to that camp site address (10 people per camper must really be a crowded scene, huh…?) Now, I am talking about “RV” voters and not “Snowbird South Dakotans,” too… Interesting, huh? And ironically, these “RV” voters are most likely white, middle age or older, and legal citizens…. Pretty interesting, huh? Maybe that is why some Republicans in South Dakota do not support the President’s current efforts over voter fraud in this county and wish the issue would just leave like a RV, huh? 😉

    So I am all for the President’s investigation into voter fraud; and I think we should start it right here in good old South Dakota, which supported the President in the last election with 61% of the vote.

    1. KM

      EC, just about fell out of my chair when I read you support Trump! Yes, interesting info about RV voters? How do you know to look into info like that? Anyway, I’m all for investigation too. I think it’s possibly very easy to vote twice in an election, using absentee & vote centers.

      1. Emoluments Clause

        KM, I hope you and your chair are okay….. 😉 When I think that anyone is right about something, or partially right, I am not afraid to back them, where I agree with them.

        The RV info actually comes from some friends, who worked on Democratic GOTV in 2016. This RV info is utterly amazing and might be a reason why some in the South Dakota Republican establishment are against a national investigation into voter fraud, too…?

        1. KM

          EC – Yep, we’re ok! You’ve stated crossing the aisle is something you’re willing to do, as am I. Many years ago I was a Dem too, the party has changed. I was pushed out bc being pro-life, not a feminist, not a supporter of socialism etc…I didn’t fall in line, so I left.

          There’s voter fraud on both sides and it shld be stopped. I don’t think SD fraud is as extreme as CA or states along the Ecoast. I would hope this investigation helps to stop dead ppl voting, having illegals or refugees vote, having RV type of voters & all the other ways this fraud takes place; these ppl shld be prosecuted. I’m going to enjoy this moment of agreeance with you;)

  12. Anon

    This is ridiculous why would you not want a review to make sure your elections have not been hacked.

  13. Anon

    I think Shantel needs to focus more on her current job then the one she’s running for.

  14. Anony

    I support President Trump’s review of elections in every state. The Attorney General should force the Secretary of State to turn over this information.

  15. Anony

    I’m surprise Krebs would make such a mistake while running for Congress. This is bad judgment on her part.

  16. Tim Higgins

    Trump was soundly criticized concerning his comments on voter fraud in the last presidential election. I would think that everyone especially democrats would welcome Kreb’s turning over the requested information so the investigation can carry on and prove President Trump wrong (tongue in cheek). She just lost two votes from this household.

  17. Anonymous

    Over half the states states are not sharing information with the federal government. Of the 29 not sharing information, 55 percent of Secretaries of State are Republicans.

    Krebs is hardly siding with the dems. She’s siding with the states.

    1. Anonymous

      Krebs was led by the dems. She’s not a bulldog, she’s a pampered poodle led by a liberal leash, no matter how many times she, Mitch, or Jason Williams make counter-comments.

  18. Anonymous

    Isn’t the Secretary of State overseen by a board of elections? If so could they intervene and force a review of election fraud?

    1. Anonymous

      Other states have said that they do plan to hand over information, albeit less than the broad sweep outlined in the letters.

      Sounds like other states figured out how to navigate that without a blanket rejection of the request.

    2. Liberty Dick

      It also appears Secretary Krebs would be violating the law by providing that information.

      The commission head Kris Kobach said that “any documents that are submitted to the full Commission will also be made available to the public.”
      12-4-41. Any information obtained from the statewide voter registration file or any county voter registration file may be used or sold only for election purposes, may not be used for any commercial purpose, and may not be placed for unrestricted access on the internet. For the purpose of this section, the term, commercial purpose, does not include campaign or political polling activities. Any violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor. In addition to any criminal sanctions, the court may impose a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars for each violation. Any civil penalty collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited in the general fund.

  19. Anonymous

    For the life of me, I cannot believe the number of commentators on this blog post who are okay with giving ANY information unnecessarily to the FEDERAL government. Seriously people. I thought South Dakotans in general and South Dakota Republicans especially would want to prevent the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from stepping into STATE AFFAIRS.

    The outrage over Krebs not sharing information is tiresome and points to the fact that GOPers are good with FEDERAL overreach when it’s their party doing it. Remember, people, administrations do change and we wouldn’t want a precident of over sharing.

    Stop and think for one minute on this please. Krebs is standing for the state and not ceding power to the Feds. She’s pulled the more conservative move in this request.

    1. Anonymous

      Do you know she has that same list for sale on her website? I can’t believe that it’s legal for her to be given out SD voters information to anyone willing to pay for it. She has lost my vote and I’m telling everyone I know not to support her.

      1. Anonymous

        The voter list has always been available for purchase. You better not support any candidate or party in this state because they’ve all procured the voter list through purchasing it.

  20. Jaa Dee

    Not gonna waste time reading the “wingie” blather—- Any conservative that agrees with this trump scheme is a flaming hypocrite as much as you whine about Fed. overreach….If Obama had done this you hypocrites would be s——- your pants and screaming socialist dictatorship….. Tell me I am wrong, y’all don’t mind lying….. This is BS, there are NO ( ZERO) studies showing widespread polling place voter fraud….Kobach the loony AG from Ks. heading this scam ordered this in Ks. and out of more than 1.5 million voters found only 12 that were questionable…. ANYBODY claiming there is a polling place fraud problem is an idiot or a damn liar…… How much $ do you debt whining clowns want to waste on this, another scam by the delusional idiot “you people” elected? Even Al. is refusing this and the AG of Mississippi said they could “jump into the Gulf of Mexico…. but of course as we see there are those “driplets” ( cultists of a hooker urine smelling “glorious leader”) so I.Q. impaired they only know to still accept anything from the fool they elected as fact………and that blind stupidity is the biggest threat to this country

  21. grudznick

    Everybody whining about this needs to send a post card to Mr. Trump with their SSN on it.

  22. Anonymous

    I’m disappointed that Krebs has joined the Dems across the country not releasing the voter file for that she has for sale on her website. She has lost my vote and my trust.

  23. Charlie Hoffman

    This whole matter is but a flicker of a percentage mover in voter approval of either candidate knowing the majority of folks finding one candidate more likeable than the other will determine the winner. Having said that Dusty needs a little more lipstick to take over the likeability rating in this race.
    😘

  24. Anne Beal

    Dates of birth? You mean somebody born in 1859 might not be eligible to vote?
    Why can’t they at least release the years of birth?

    1. Pat Powers Post author

      Actually, year of birth is included in the lists sold by the SOS. Used to have SSN numbers up until 15 years or so ago, and full DOB up until 5-6 years ago.

  25. jimmy james

    Has any reputable person made a legitimate claim that there was widespread voter fraud? The election officials from the fifty states? Nope. Not that I’m aware of.

    Where is Trump’s evidence? How dare I even ask.

    Just another Trump fantasy. So now, he creates a second invention to go with the first. The states are now “hiding something”.

    SNAFU.

  26. Anonymous

    Please be more respectful of our president. I support him and Krebs. They will be great together.

  27. Not a Fan

    I applaud Secretary Krebs for standing up with this bipartisan group of states. As the article you cited says, the claim of “widespread voter fraud” is unsubstantiated, and the only reason this Commission is wasting taxpayer money is because the current occupant of the Oval Office was mad he didn’t win the popular vote.

  28. Anonymous

    When did Republicans abandon the principle of states rights? I agree with the person who said if this was Obama asking for this information republicans wouldn’t like it… and I support Donald Trump but states rights Republicans shouldn’t change their positions just because a Republican says to do it.

    I’m also against Republicans spending money just like I’m against Democrats. My opinion doesn’t change based on who is in the White House.

    1. Anonymous

      That’s ok. You’re probably a big government republican anyway. She probably didn’t even have your vote to begin with.

  29. Anonymous

    Shantel ran to Dakota Free Press to tell her side of the story. Not a good move, she’s pandering to the Dems.

  30. Anon

    Krebs showing her true colors. I’m a Trump supporter and a conservative and she should cooperate with the voter fraud commission!

  31. Anonymous

    I don’t understand people being afraid of the federal government having your Social Security Number. That’s like Santa Claus having your address sorry but you’re pretty stupid if you don’t think he all ready has it.

  32. Anonymous

    I don’t understand people being afraid of the federal government having your Social Security Number. That’s like Santa Claus having your address sorry but you’re pretty stupid if you don’t think he all ready has it. Too late.

  33. Troy Jones

    Does the Secretary of State provide the list of voters to the counties to ensure we have fair elections?

    But, not willing to do it with the Federal Government?

    In case nobody realized this but voter fraud that occurs in other states can “bless” us with a President who was not duly elected. The idea we believe we don’t have it here means we shouldn’t be willing to allow it to be verified here. And, our failure to cooperate in such an investigation only gives an excuse for the State’s who don’t have fair elections to keep not having fair elections.

    Take a side Secretary of State. If you want fair national elections, find a way to cooperate.

    1. Anonymous

      Troy, I don’t see a difference between Gant and Jackley taking these documents offline and Krebs refusing to release SSN numbers. Let’s also remember that auditors run elections. The Feds do not.

      Kelo story:
      In the fall of 2015, KELOLAND News discovered former Secretary of State Jason Gant had used an outside server to store corporate filings. Current Secretary of State Shantel Krebs says a hack on that server was the reason why as many as half a million corporate filings were taken down.

      Yet Gant told KELOLAND News that was a separate problem and the reason the documents were taken down is because they contained personal information like tax ID and Social Security numbers.

      http://www.keloland.com/news/article/investigates/missing-documents-returned-to-secretary-of-state-s-website

    2. Anonymous

      My point Troy is that why would AG Jackley tell Gant to remove hundreds of thousands of documents because they might contain personal info. But then say it’s ok to turn them over to a commission that says all info will be made public. You don’t make sense.

    3. jimmy james

      I wish you a happy 4th of July Troy but I have to challenge what you stated above: “Take a side Secretary of State. If you want fair national elections, find a way to cooperate.”

      She came down on the “side” of legality. To “find another way” would mean exactly what?

      And as far as “fair national elections”…. have you, the President or anyone else for that matter, presented evidence that we have not had fair elections? Three to five million illegal votes? Nobody has provided proof of more than a few dozen. I am not a math wizard but I believe that you have a ways to go there.

      Donald Trump loses the popular vote by three million votes so, of course, there must have been at least that many illegal votes, right? If he had lost the election, it would have been five to seven million, I suppose.

      Juvenile.

  34. Anony

    If you can’t agree with trumps presidential review of the election I can’t vote for you. Shantel has lost my vote.

  35. Kelly Lieberg

    Pony up the bucks and you can have what has been sold many times over. If you want more than that, tough. Krebs wins.

  36. Anonymous

    I’ve supported Secretary Krebs but not releasing this information to Trump’s committee I disagree with. She has lost my vote. Trump is changing politics and I say less talk and more action.

    1. Anonymous

      Glad SOS Krebs is independent minded and took the legal and right position on this.

  37. Troy Jones

    Let’s imagine the issue is as you say- the information will become public.

    Since she is the Secretary of State responsible for fair elections, wouldn’t a better response be to give conditions for providing the information which protects individual information she provides instead of her blanket statement she will not cooperate with the Commissions investigation into voter fraud.

    Her response is reminds me of law enforcement in sanctuary cities with regard to illegal immigrants. I expect better from our sworn Chief Election Officer.

    By the way, your reach with regard to the Gant comparison on corporate records put online makes you look stupid. And, by the way, Kreisler isn’t running against Gant anymore. It’s starting to sound like the gal whose life is a mess so she always reminds people she was a cheerleader.

    1. Anonymous

      Bad analogy. Immigration is federal policy. We don’t have federal elections in this country. We have 50 state elections. You’re right when you say she is the chief election officer. But you miss the meaning behind that title. No one other level or form of government is above her in terms of running elections in SD. Including the federal government.

  38. Anonymous

    44 states have now refused to comply. Shantel did the right thing here, and she was one of the first to do it. That’s leadership. I was all in on Dusty, but I now I have to consider her…