Dear editor:
Let's run a thought experiment about Secretary of State Chuck Gray.
Imagine Joe Biden is President and Merrick Garland is attorney general.
At their direction, the U.S. Justice Department demands Gray immediately turn over information on every Wyoming voter on the state’s voting rolls -- including their driver's license and Social Security numbers the Wyoming election code deems confidential.
The demand doesn't explain how the data will be used by the federal government, who will see it, or how Gray could comply without violating the confidentiality provisions of the election code.
How would Gray respond -- A or B?
A. "No problem my federal friends-- I trust Joe and Merrick and all the folks in Washington, so I'll hand it all over in the name of election integrity."
B. "Are you kidding??? Don’t you know the Constitution makes elections the states' job! I'm not selling out MY Wyoming voters to build some DUMTARD database. Sue me!"
We all know the answer is B.
Yet when the actual demand came -- from President Trump's Justice Department -- Gray couldn't have been more accommodating.
He happily became the first secretary of state in the country to comply, handing over every personal detail requested.
At least 21 federal courts have since found no lawful basis for the Trump administration's demand for state voter data. No court has ruled otherwise.
Yet, thanks to Chuck Gray, our confidential information remains in the hands of the federal government, unprotected. We have received no apology.
Gray likes to say Attorney General Kautz told him what he did was all fine and legal, but neither man will say what Kautz actually advised.
Whatever advice Kautz gave, 21 federal courts have determined it was wrong.
Given Kautz’s conflict of interest, longtime Wyoming lawyer George Powers asked our Supreme Court to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate the legality of Gray’s actions, but the Court declined.
Similarly, neither the Legislature nor Gov. Gordon -- the official our constitution charges with enforcing the law -- has done anything to address what must surely be the most significant breach of voter confidentiality in Wyoming's history.
In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison, a government of laws "will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."
Yet, sadly, all three branches of our Wyoming government -- executive, legislative, and judicial -- have failed to provide any remedy for Gray's disclosure of our confidential information in violation of the Wyoming election code.
But since Gray is now seeking our votes to elevate himself to the U.S House, he has given us a remedy of sorts at the ballot box.
Let us claim that remedy by showing with our votes that we expect our elected officials to honor the laws that protects us -- rather than themselves.
Sincerely,
William Schwartz, Jackson
