Jay Ambrose: Despite resistance, let’s make voting fraud harder

The Trump administration wants to check up on voter fraud possibilities in the United States, and the states have talked about invasions of privacy, which is nonsense, have insisted there is no fraud, which is nonsense, and Democrats have snarled about suppressing votes, which is nonsense.

Voter fraud, of course, is usually to the Democrats’ advantage, and they just might be more concerned about making it hard to cheat than making it hard to vote. But let’s let the facts speak for themselves after first conceding that, yes, President Donald Trump has made outlandish claims about the 2016 election. He said he would have won the popular vote if not for illegal voting, and that’s hooey.

But in forming a bipartisan commission through executive order, he dropped that prattle and focused on the dangers intimated, for instance, by all the registered voters who happen to be dead (1.8 million) and those registered in more than one state ( 2.8 million). In his usual verbally confused way, Trump said that dead voters were voting. What he obviously meant was that perfectly alive people could use names of the deceased to uphold the machine- politics principle of one grave, one vote.

States say they are up- andat-’ em on maintaining accurate registration rolls and keeping ineligibles away from the ballot box. But let somebody get out there and check around, such as the Pew Research Center, and you find out differently, as in its providing the numbers above. Despite obligations to make states do better on some scores, the Obama administration opted for nap time, and don’t fall for the line that there’s no mass manipulation and hence no worry.

First off, there is definitely the possibility of widespread fraud and then there is an actuality: It does not take a lot of fraudulent votes to change close election outcomes. It verifiably happens. That’s one reason at least some states have developed tougher standards, such as voter IDs that are no big deal to get despite contrary claims that democracy is thus impeded. The argument is overridden by the simple truth that most states implementing new ID laws see more voting.

So far in this relatively short century, it might be added, there have been at least 1,071 voting fraud cases in 47 states, according to the Heritage Foundation, which added that resulting criminal convictions were 938. So here came the questioning, deterrent- minded Trump commission accompanied by trepidation as numerous states initially insisted they would not cooperate.

As a matter of privacy, many said, they would not turn over such requests as voters’ party affiliations, addresses, names and birth dates, but get this: The letter sent to them clearly asked that they provide the information only if it “is publicly available under the laws of your state,” which it mostly is.

Not a few Democrats have accused Trump of devious ends, but they more likely reside in the resistance to research. For instance, I join a fellow columnist, Deroy Murdock, in wondering why Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia vetoed a bill calling for an investigation of more registered than eligible voters in voting districts. His explanation of how hard and unfair that might be did not cause me to say, “Oh, now I get it.”

In our current system, just maybe there has been a lot more fraud than some states have figured out or want to figure out and it is known that when it comes to illegal immigrants, for instance, they like voting Democratic, although fraud can go either way. There are three highly reputable Democrats on the Trump commission and they certainly won’t be out to make an anti- Democratic point. They will likely want to find out how we can make our system more secure from forces here and abroad.

The people who don’t leave us a lot to think about.

It is tempting to bask in the daily dose of palace intrigue these days at the Trump White House, but the running narratives of who reports to whom are not ultimately important. What matters is the path forward for the president’s agenda, and whether it is helped or hindered by the everchanging cast of characters.

Change itself is not usually helpful. The ideal is to see a team selected, then watch it harmoniously coalesce on a smooth, sure path toward its goals.

That’s not this presidency. But in fairness, that’s not any presidency. Every administration has its sharpelbowed infighting; this one simply has a special talent for putting it in a display window.

Amid turnover of this dizzying pace, the first question is: Are we upgrading at every position?

Sean Spicer to Sarah Huckabee Sanders as press secretary? Yes. Reince Priebus to John Kelly as Chief of Staff? Yes. Anthony Scaramucci to his successor as communications director? Without even knowing that successor yet? Yes.

Scaramucci’s arrival and exit both warrant examination. His arrival showed Donald Trump’s desire to work with people who resemble him. His departure shows Trump’s unwillingness to work with people who embarrass him.

This is where the Trump haters step up to suggest there’s irony in someone as brash as Trump possibly being embarrassed by the language of anyone in his sphere. But no Trump tweet or other public comment comes close to the reckless, inexplicable idiocy of Scaramucci’s vulgar rant to a New Yorker reporter. The president likes fighters, but will not tolerate underlings who mortify critics and supporters alike for no reason.

So does the arrival of a retired Marine general as chief of staff bring instant discipline? It brought Scaramucci’s instant departure and delivered an instant message. From here on out, it’s anybody’s guess. Kelly will almost surely enforce a certain decorum among the ranks, but do not expect him to constrain the instincts of his boss.

Nor should he. The Trump tweets are the engine that inspires and delights his base, even as enemies float withering tales of Russia collusion.

But even the most loyal portions of that base are eager to see some actual results. The Obamacare repeal failure has not been his fault, and there is no doubt that the half-year of Trump has ushered in an America that feels very different in terms of borders, the economy, energy and various social issues, just for starters. Those changes have been welcomed by the vast majority of voters who sought exactly this type of change.

But as John Kelly plugs in to whip the troops into shape toward goals like tax reduction and regulatory reform, history observes that chiefs of staff are rarely famous and rarely long-serving; Barack Obama had four in his first term. The best evidence that Kelly is doing his job will be how seldom he appears in the headlines.

That will be a challenge in a carnivorous media environment that will obsess at the slightest whiff of a West Wing soap opera. The best thing Kelly can do is enforce message discipline around the Oval Office while the man inside figures out what his daily or hourly passions are.

At no point will this come to resemble a White House akin to what any of Trump’s 2016 rivals might have rolled out. At no point will it resemble any White House, ever.

John Kelly is a welcome asset who can be of great value, but the direction of the Trump administration will not be dictated by anyone but the president himself.