Following up on this post, new EAC Commissioner Rosemary Rodriguez has issued this statement. A snippet: “I cannot bind the Commission, as one member, but I believe that the EAC should immediately respond to Ms. Wang’s request. I further believe that releasing Ms. Wang to discuss her work for the EAC will be a positive step as we endeavor to operate with more transparency.”
Bravo for Commissioner Rodriguez! I thought courage left the EAC with the departure of Commissioners Soaries and Martinez. I’m glad to be proven at least 1/4 wrong.
UPDATE: I just got an email with the EAC’s periodic updates (EAC “Newsline”). It not only links to the Rodriguez letter. It also links to an April 16 letter from Commissioner Hillman, explaining her reasons for voting not to release the draft EAC report on fraud and calling for the IG to investigate the EAC’s handling of the two reports. The same day, the EAC requested the IG review.
Commissioner Hillman’s views on the release of the EAC report are misguided. If the EAC is going to commission research, it should allow for that research to be released. If the commission believes the research is flawed, it should so state (or it could take the step of disavowing the research, as it did—pretty indefensibly in my view—with the voter id and turnout research). It should also impose no “gag orders” on its contracted researchers. The truth in social science emerges from discussion, not silence.
It is interesting to me that Commissioner Hillman did not join Commissioner Rodriguez in calling for the EAC to at the very least respond to Wang and further to allow her to speak. Of course, if Commissioner Hillman did so, the EAC could split 2-2 on party lines, which certainly would undercut the agency’s hopes for “bipartisanship”in election administration. Ideally, all 4 commissioners should simply vote to let Wang and all other EAC researchers talk after their research is released and put this behind them.