It’s an odd thing for a sitting congresswoman to demand that a secretary of state violate public records law, just because she doesn’t like the politics of the person making the public records request.  Dina Titus, of course, sent a letter to Barbara Cegavske asking that she not provide the Trump administration with basic voter data, data that are, of course, public records.

Ms. Titus surely knows this, since she herself has no doubt requested this same voter data every time her campaign team has generated a volunteer walk list or filled your mailboxes with fliers. It’s SOS data that allows campaigns to specifically target and contact people of any given political party, and to know who’s likely to actually vote.  

President Trump may only be trying to “soothe his insecurities,” as Ms. Titus charges in her letter, but at least an independent review of election integrity is rather obviously a core function of government. I wonder if she’ll similarly complain when Ms. Cegavske releases that same publicly available data to unions or other independent leftist PACs attacking Republicans in next year’s election cycle?

~~~

In addition to being overwrought, this most current “Resistance” panic is embarrassingly ignorant. Democrats are mad because the Federal Government wants… the last four of people’s social security number? Do they not understand the absurdity of trying to keep a bit of identifying information secret from the agency that issued it to you in the first place?

I’m all for privacy, but at some point, this paranoia makes the prepper with the Ron Paul posters decorating his bunker look reasonable. Worse, when we really need a backstop against an overreaching Trump administration, regular folks no longer take his opposition seriously.

~~~

It says volumes about the Democratic base that this sort of pandering speaks to them. Some fraction of the activist left really believes this is a problem, which means they’re thinking tribally, not logically or factually. And the rest knows this information is already publicly available, but now they legitimately want a “viewpoint” test on who is worthy to access those records.  They would rather violate the law than let a political adversary have access to public documents.  

And people complain about Donald Trump’s authoritarianism…

~~~

Don’t get me wrong – I think a healthy skepticism of a government keeping tabs on it citizens is a good thing. I just don’t understand it coming from a group of people who want that same government to have access to (and control over) who your doctor is, what medical insurance you’re allowed to have, what medical care you’re allowed to receive, what guns you’re allowed to possess, how you can develop your property, who businesses are allowed to hire and fire and what they pay their employees, what schools poor children are allowed to go to, how many deodorant options you should have, and… well, really pretty much every aspect of our lives. Power we give to politicians we do like will inevitably find its way into the hands of those we don’t, which is why government’s constant expansion is bad for us all in the end.

Also, regardless of President Trump’s motives, don’t we all want the integrity of our elections to be checked and re-checked? What’s the downside? Partisan paranoia about “millions” of illegal immigrants voting every year or Vladimir Putin “hacking” our elections are absurd. But occasionally ineligible people really do vote, and sometimes it might have made the difference in close elections. Why are the same people supposedly worried about foreign influence in our elections upset that someone is investigating potential foreign influence in our elections? Such audits will help keep actual voter fraud as rare as it is, and more importantly, help maintain our faith in the integrity of electoral politics in general.

There is no principled reason to be bothered by Barbara Cegavske complying with an information request of this sort from the federal government. There is only blind tribalism or cynical political posturing.

~~~

In spite of all this, I hope Titus jumps into the US Senate primary race against Jacky Rosen, as her letter to Cegavske clearly indicates she’s considering. As silly as that letter is, at least it shows a glimmer of understanding that there are benefits to limiting federal power in general and executive power specifically. Donald Trump’s greatest legacy in our state may be re-awakening the political left to the wisdom of federalism.

Besides, I would think Nevada Democrats would prefer a more independent and experienced legislator who doesn’t feel compelled to get Harry Reid’s blessing to pick out her own socks every morning. Love Reid or hate him, who thinks it’s healthy for a political organization calling itself a “Democratic” party to have one shadowy and now unelected boss calling all the shots in advance?

More importantly, how beneficial is it to Nevada to have a significant portion of our delegation be inexperienced junior back-benchers who everyone recognizes are puppets of a guy who isn’t even around anymore?

The partisan in me is perfectly happy with Rosen as Dean Heller’s opponent. I think she’s easier to beat, and even if she wins, she won’t be effective in turning left-wing ideas into actual policies we have to deal with. But of the two Democrats, Titus (especially if she can throttle back from this sort of empty partisan puffery) would clearly be more independent-minded and moderate – and therefore a more effective advocate for all Nevadans.  

Orrin Johnson has been writing and commenting on Nevada and national politics since 2007.  He started with an independent blog, First Principles, and was a regular columnist for the Reno Gazette-Journal from 2015-2016.  By day, he is a deputy district attorney for Carson City.  His opinions here are his own.  Follow him on Twitter @orrinjohnson, or contact him at [email protected].

Feature photo: People check in to vote during primary election day at Sahara West Library on Tuesday, April 4, 2017. Photo by Jeff Scheid.