EagleAI is designed to undermine local election officials and suppress votes.‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

[link removed]

Let us introduce you to a victim of the lunacy of today’s politics: ERIC.

The Electronic Registration Information Center was a model of bipartisan cooperation for more than a decade. Founded jointly by Republican- and Democratic-dominated states, ERIC helped update voter rolls to make sure people were not registered in two states, for example. It contributed to the removal of millions of ineligible voters from the rolls and helped millions of eligible citizens to sign up. When Florida joined the collaborative in 2019, Gov. Ron DeSantis said the move would ensure “cleaner and more accurate voter registration rolls.” Iowa’s Republican secretary of state called the system a “godsend.” ERIC was blandly noncontroversial.

Until last year, that is, when the fringe website Gateway Pundit began to insist that ERIC was an incubator for misconduct. Evidence? None. Now nine Republican-run states have withdrawn from the system — Alabama, Iowa, Florida, Louisiana,Missouri, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. Donald Trump piled on, claiming ERIC “pumps the rolls” for Democrats. The withdrawals were a major loss for safe and secure elections, because the information that was shared between states helped everyone. The departures weakened the entire system. Ironically, conspiracy theories about double voting are undermining one key institution that prevents fraud.

And the story just got worse. A group of prominent election deniers have announced an inferior replacement for ERIC: the EagleAI NETwork. It isn’t just an affront to proper capitalization — it’s an attack on voters.

At first glance, EagleAI roughly resembles ERIC. Both systems extract information from databases to identify inconsistencies, such as voters who may have moved or died. But, as my colleagues Andrew Garber and Alice Clapman explain

[link removed]

, the similarities end there. ERIC uses confidential data and sophisticated, AI-assisted matching technology to supply election officials with a list of voters to investigate. The professionals take it from there, reaching out to voters to confirm that they remain eligible.

EagleAI is worse in every way. It uses inferior technology to analyze less reliable data. It’s limited to purely public sources, such as the National Change of Address Database. (Your voter registration could be questioned because you went on vacation and forwarded your mail.) Once the system finds what it regards as an inconsistency, it flags that voter registration.

Here comes the worst part. Rather than delivering information to election officials, EagleAI invites ordinary citizens to scour its list of flagged voter registrations. The amateur sleuths can then hunt down any suggestion of ineligibility, such as a social media post, and challenge a voter’s registration with a couple of clicks. We know that they do little to verify information before crying “fraud.”

Local election administration offices, which are already stretched paper thin, will be inundated with baseless challenges. They simply don’t have the resources to deal with these waves of make-work. Individual voters are intimidated when they receive baseless warnings about their eligibility out of the blue. And news of these mass challenges undermines faith in the system, even if they are overwhelmingly without merit.

Georgia shows the problem with mass challenges of supposedly fishy voters. One activist group there has challenged tens of thousands of voter registrations based on little more than wishful thinking. County boards of elections rejected nearly all the challenges, but at a massive cost of time and energy. That time could be spent doing outreach to eligible voters.

Former Trump lawyer Cleta Mitchell was on the infamous call to pressure Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” extra votes, the call that is the subject of two indictments. Mitchell is one of the driving forces behind EagleAI. No surprise there. EagleAI isn’t about strengthening election integrity or maintaining clean voter rolls. It’s another attempt to make elections vulnerable to manipulation and voter suppression.





Undercover Government Agents on Social Media

More than 3,000 pages of internal records obtained by a Brennan Center lawsuit show that the Department of Homeland Security routinely uses fake social media accounts to gather information about people, with insufficient protections for privacy rights. The revelations add to long-running concerns about government use of social media at all levels and underscore the need for robust reforms. Chief among these are “clear and enforceable controls and transparency requirements,” José Guillermo Gutiérrez and Rachel Levinson-Waldman write. Read more

[link removed]

Fixing the Pentagon’s Transparency Problem

The Department of Defense has long failed to properly inform lawmakers about military activities, hindering effective congressional oversight. Though Congress has made modest efforts to improve the department’s reporting practices, the department still shows no signs of changing its protocols. “This level of dysfunction is damaging to our democracy,” Katherine Yon Ebright writes. “Congress must continue its push to improve military transparency with vigor.” READ MORE

[link removed]

Taking Bias Out of Agency Decision-Making

The Justice Department recently updated its decade-old rules on how federal law enforcement agencies can consider race, religion, and other protected characteristics. The changes include some welcome improvements, such as protections for people with disabilities, but still leave the door open for picking targets based on bias rather than credible evidence. “Unless the guidance is followed up with robust measures to support accountability,” Faiza Patel and Harsha Panduranga write in Just Security, “it will fail to meaningfully address discriminatory profiling.” Read more

[link removed]

The Turbulent Legal Fight for Reproductive Rights

In August, the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld a strict abortion ban just seven months after striking down a very similar ban. The reversal followed the departure of the court’s only female justice. South Carolina may not be the only state to backtrack on reproductive rights after a change in its high court membership. Florida’s abortion protections are also vulnerable

[link removed]

, as its conservative-dominated supreme court is set to hear oral arguments on Friday in a challenge to the state’s 15-week abortion ban. Both cases highlight “the unstable nature of post-Dobbs reproductive rights, which often hinge on state high courts’ conflicting and changeable interpretations of their constitutions,” Gabriella Sanchez writes in State Court Report. READ MORE

[link removed]





Coming Up

VIRTUAL EVENT: Abortion Rights and the Future of State Constitutions

[link removed]

Tuesday, September 19, 6–7 p.m. ET



Join us for a live virtual panel exploring the aftermath of Dobbs and its implications for state courts and constitutions. Panelists include Cheri Beasley, former chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court; David Cohen, reproductive rights scholar at Drexel University; and Alicia Bannon, director of the Brennan Center Judiciary Program and editor in chief of State Court Report. Emily Bazelon of the New York Times Magazine and Yale Law School will moderate a conversation on the role of state courts in adjudicating reproductive rights cases, as well as the future of state constitutionalism. RSVP today

[link removed]



Produced in partnership with the Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Center

Want to keep up with Brennan Center Live events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

[link removed]





News

Kareem Crayton on the ruling striking down Alabama’s voting maps // New York Times

[link removed]

Elizabeth Howard on threats against election officials // Associated Press

[link removed]

Michael Li on Florida’s redistricting dispute // MESSENGER

[link removed]

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]