Trump voter commission admits to ‘chaotic’ start, apologizes for botching transparency

President Trump’s voter integrity commission had to beg for forgiveness from a federal judge Wednesday, admitting the panel got off to a “chaotic” start and vowing to be more transparent to the public going forward.

Elizabeth Shapiro, the Justice Department lawyer representing the commission, painted a picture of a panel in disarray ahead of its first meeting in July, not even sure what was the official business for commissioners actually to do at the meeting.

That, she said, made it difficult to obtain and share materials with the public beforehand, as required by open-records laws.

Facing a skeptical U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, Ms. Shapiro said the problems weren’t evidence of bad faith, but rather bungling and misinterpretations of what the judge had wanted.

“It was truly an honest misunderstanding,” the lawyer said, adding later that “there was no intention to misrepresent.”

“All right, I accept that,” the judge said — then she ordered a series of new steps the commission must take to be more transparent about documents it’s already collected, and how it plans to make the public aware of its business going forward.

With a second meeting scheduled for Sept. 12, the judge ordered the panel to provide a firm set of guidelines it intends to follow in the future, laying out exactly what documents the commission believes the public has a right to know, what documents it will withhold, and how it intends to make commissioners comply.

The judge also ordered a list of documents already collected by the commission.

Ms. Shapiro said the commission has already made a start, firing off a letter to panel members earlier Wednesday detailing their obligations under the law.

“It makes clear there should be no surprises,” she said.

She admitted to the judge that the commissioners had previously received only brief training, on the day of the first meeting, about the legal obligations of being a member of a federal advisory commission.

Ahead of the July meeting, just one commissioner submitted opening statements, while several brought studies or presentations they shared with the commission. Those materials weren’t available beforehand for inspection by the public.

Ms. Shapiro admitted that was not a good beginning. “It was a chaotic start to the commission,” she said.

Mr. Trump formed the commission to look into voter fraud and other problems with the 2016 election, after he concluded he would have won the popular vote save for illegal ballots cast.

Most analysts say there’s no evidence that there was enough fraud in the election to close that nearly 3 million vote gap.

The commission has been controversial from the start, with Democrats saying they believe it’s a step toward trying to kick valid voters off voting rolls — something commissioners say is not only wrong, but impossible. As an advisory commission, the panel has no regulatory powers.

Despite those assurances, a number of groups have tried to derail the commission business. Democratic state officials have said they will resist turning over voter data to the commission, and Ms. Shapiro said Wednesday that the commission is facing seven different lawsuits.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer tried to tie the commission’s work to neo-Nazi violence, saying the white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville, Virginia, earlier in August want to see minorities prevented from voting — and speculating that’s the goal of Mr. Trump’s commission.

Commission Vice Chairman Kris Kobach called that an insulting insinuation.

The plaintiffs in Wednesday’s hearing, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, had asked the judge to force Mr. Kobach to have to answer questions under oath about the panel’s operations.

The judge rejected that request and several other intrusive demands, saying they were too broad.

Mr. Kobach said that was a victory for the commission.

“Contrary to media reports, in today’s hearing, the plaintiffs requested an unreasonable amount of discovery from the commission. The court denied most of their demands, including their most burdensome ones,” he said. “The bipartisan commission remains committed to doing the important work of helping to ensure the integrity of our elections.”