Background Checks for Voting Get Floated at Trump Election Commission Meeting

This is what happens when you invite a gun researcher to a meeting on voting.

Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity members Kenneth Blackwell, Kris Kobach, and Bill Gardner at the commission meeting on Tuesday.Holly Ramer/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

There are about 33,000 gun deaths each year in America. Between 2000 and 2014, there were just 31 documented cases of voter impersonation. But as President Donald Trump’s election integrity commission kicked off its second meeting on Tuesday, a conservative economist suggested that voters be subject to the same background check as gun purchasers in order to assuage Republican concerns about voter fraud.

John Lott Jr., who specializes in research on gun ownership and crime, was invited by the commission to speak at the meeting in New Hampshire. The witness list is as controversial as the commission itself, whose roster of voter fraud fear-mongers has sparked concerns that they will use the commission to push reforms that make it harder to vote. All of the witnesses at Tuesday’s meeting are white men, and they include former Justice Department staffers under George W. Bush who have pushed strict voter ID laws and purges of voter rolls.

But nothing in the meeting’s morning session was as explosive as Lott’s proposal. He said the background check system run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco is well suited to check whether voters are eligible to cast a ballot because it checks for such things as citizenship and criminal history. But the qualifications for purchasing a firearm are much more stringent than those for voting. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) screens such things as criminal history, dishonorably military discharges, and mental health or substance abuse issues. Not only could NICS erroneously flag someone as ineligible to vote, it could also deter people from voting who are distrustful of law enforcement and want to stay away from a criminal background check. And background checks cost money, which would have to be paid by the voter or the state.

Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, a Democratic commission member, challenged the background check idea, noting that NICS was never intended to be used for election purposes. But Lott pushed back, saying that since Democrats liked the system for gun purchases, he saw no reason for them to oppose using the system on voters. “It’s the same things that disqualify you from owning a gun that disqualify you from voting,” Lott insisted. Commissioner Christy McCormick, a Republican member of the Election Assistance Commission, which assists states with election administration, said the background check idea was interesting. (After the session, Dunlap told ProPublica‘s Jessica Huseman that the idea is “ridiculous” and he initially thought Lott was joking. Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican commissioner, also told Huseman he opposed the idea.)

Lott is not new to controversy. His studies suggesting that increased gun ownership reduces crime have been touted by the National Rifle Association for two decades. Fellow academics have questioned his findings, and David Hemenway, the director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, has called his conclusions “erroneous.” 

“From the perspective of a voter, imagine having to go through the federal bureaucracy of getting a background check cleared before voting,” says David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research. “The process is a disaster as envisioned.”

Lott himself has said that background checks for gun purchases “only makes life easier for criminals” and that the background check databases are “rife with errors,” raising questions about why he’d want to use such a system for voting. His recent writings suggest that his idea might be more about embarrassing Democrats than serious policy. “Applying the NICS background checks to voting would undoubtedly elicit a long list of other concerns from Democrats about how the system interferes with people’s right to vote,” he wrote in the Chicago Tribune on Monday. “The debate could prove quite embarrassing for Democrats. Will they finally admit to the double standard? They are very concerned about getting poor people’s votes, but they want to make it difficult for poor people to defend themselves.”

In his presentation to the commission, Lott said that according to his own research, voter ID requirements increase turnout and do not have a disproportionate effect on minority or poor voters, as other studies have found. A 2014 study by the Government Accountability Office concluded that strict voter ID laws in Kansas and Tennessee reduced turnout by 2 to 3 percent, with the largest drops among young voters, new voters, and African Americans.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate