Spicer Suggests Tighter Voting Restrictions as Solution to Nonexistent Voter Fraud

The White House press secretary floated the idea of investigating blue states and implementing voter identification laws.

Susan Walsh/AP


Hours after President Donald Trump tweeted that he’d launch a “major investigation” into massive voter fraud, of which there’s no evidence, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer on Wednesday laid out a few details of what such an investigation might look like.

As reporters and experts immediately pointed out, Trump’s belief that 3 million to 5 million people voted illegally in November is at odds with what his own lawyers said in court when they challenged the recount petitions of Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein. “All available evidence suggests that the 2016 general election was not tainted by fraud or mistake,” Trump’s legal team argued in a brief.

But on Wednesday, Spicer claimed that the legal team had actually only been discussing the three states where Stein pushed for recounts, not the entire country. “I think there’s a lot of states that we didn’t compete in where that’s not necessarily the case,” he said, mentioning California and New York. “I think that if you look at where a lot of potential—a lot of these issues could have occurred in bigger states. That’s where I think we’re going to look.”

Spicer also floated the idea that voter ID laws, which serve to suppress voter participation among minorities, young people, and the elderly, could be a solution to problems the investigation may find.

Spicer’s comments led reporters and other observers to question why a massive voter fraud scheme would be carried out in reliably blue states, instead of swing states where the election is decided.

It’s not just Trump’s legal team that sees no evidence of fraud. Secretaries of state, governors, and even Republican members of Congress have come forward to say they have no evidence to back up Trump’s allegations. On Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned that Trump’s voter fraud claims will “erode his ability to govern this country if he does not stop it” and urged him to “knock this off.”

If Wednesday is any indication, Trump is not taking Graham’s advice.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight 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

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.