I asked Chuck Gray why he released our confidential voter information to the feds. What have I learned?

In February, I asked Secretary of State Chuck Gray to explain why he released confidential voter information in response to an unprecedented request from the Department of Justice. The Wyoming Election Code stated unambiguously that this information was confidential. Gray hid behind a wall of epithets and self-serving conclusions. He called me a radical left-wing activist practicing lawfare and claimed that the Wyoming attorney general had approved his actions.

Opinion

So, I made a public record request asking to see the attorney general’s opinion that Gray cited. But Gray asserted this was privileged attorney-client communication. He insisted he could ignore Wyoming elections law in reliance upon an undisclosed opinion of another public servant.

When someone wants to sell me a used car and says that the car has been certified by their mechanic, I want to see that mechanic’s report. Just because Gray said his decision to surrender Wyoming’s confidential voter list was legal does not make it so, particularly after I have read nine separate federal court decisions stating the Justice Department never had a right to request this confidential information in the first place.

So, I did just what the Wyoming Election Code said I should do. I filed a complaint against Gray for releasing confidential voter information. But I had to file that complaint with the attorney general, and that raised yet another problem: If the attorney general represented Gray and had already approved the release of the confidential voter lists, then he had a clear conflict of interest.

No lawyer can investigate a client without violating duties of confidentiality and loyalty. Moreover, no lawyer is going to question their client’s decision to rely on that lawyer’s advice. So, I asked to have a disinterested person appoint an independent prosecutor separate from and independent of the attorney general’s office.

But the attorney general would not publicly acknowledge his conflict of interest, insisting that he had complete discretion and would not conduct his business in the public space. The attorney general’s refusal to provide any transparency regarding how he intended to address his conflict was another wall between me and the truth.

So, I retained counsel, and together we filed my petition for a writ of mandamus with the Wyoming Supreme Court. We argued the attorney general did not have discretion to ignore the conflict of interest. We asked the Supreme Court to order him to recuse himself and permit an independent special prosecutor to assume responsibility for investigating Gray’s actions. The attorney general’s response raised more walls.

First, he said that he had secured “independent evaluations” from two sets of unidentified attorneys and that these “independent” attorneys had declined to pursue any claims against Gray. But who were these attorneys?

One set of attorneys was selected from his own staff. The other set were members of a private law firm assisted by a county attorney retained as special assistant attorneys general. We do not know when these attorneys received their assignments, we do not know what they were asked to do, nor do we know what evidence they reviewed, although I can confirm that no one ever contacted me as part of any investigation.

Even if you put these questions aside, you need to know one more thing. Under Wyoming law, “Each assistant attorney general shall be a member in good standing of the Wyoming bar and shall serve at the pleasure of the attorney general.” No one who serves “at the pleasure” of the attorney general can truly be considered independent.

The attorney general should not only be disqualified from conducting the investigation himself. He should also be barred from controlling the selection of the attorneys who would have the responsibility to clean up this mess. But, who has the authority to hold the attorney general accountable?

We will never know, because the Supreme Court has now denied my petition, holding that I failed to cite “any ‘absolute, clear, and indisputable’ law” requiring the attorney general to recuse himself and allowing the court to appoint an independent prosecutor. Apparently, there is no remedy to address the attorney general’s conflict of interest.

But remember the attorney general said he had reports from these attorneys. Where are these reports? They were not filed with the Supreme Court. If the attorney general wants us to rely on the judgment of his handpicked attorneys, shouldn’t we have a chance to see their work?

I have now submitted another public record request asking for any records to substantiate the attorney general’s statements. Under the Wyoming Public Records Act, a record that is readily accessible must be produced “immediately.” Surely the attorney general should have no problem finding and producing his attorneys’ reports immediately and without further delay. Will he do so, or will I just find myself staring at one more wall?

What have I learned from my efforts to find out why Gray disclosed that confidential voter information? I have learned that some public officials will labor long and hard to prevent public disclosures about the decisions they make. I have learned that we, the people of Wyoming, cannot shirk our responsibility to question authority and hold our public officials accountable. We need to remind our public officials that they work for us. They serve at our pleasure.

WyoFile's goal is to provide readers with information and ideas that foster constructive conversations about the issues and opportunities our communities face. One small piece of how we do that is by offering a space below each story for readers to share perspectives, experiences and insights. For this to work, we need your help.

What we're looking for:

Your real name — first and last.
Direct responses to the article. Tell us how your experience relates to the story.
The truth. Share factual information that adds context to the reporting.
Thoughtful answers to questions raised by the reporting or other commenters.
Tips that could advance our reporting on the topic.
No more than three comments per story, including replies.

What we block from our comments section, when we see it:

Pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish, and we expect commenters to do the same by using their real name.
Comments that are not directly relevant to the article.
Demonstrably false claims, what-about-isms, references to debunked lines of rhetoric, professional political talking points or links to sites trafficking in misinformation.
Personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats.
Arguments with other commenters.

Other important things to know:

Appearing in WyoFile’s comments section is a privilege, not a right or entitlement.
We’re a small team and our first priority is reporting. Depending on what’s going on, comments may be moderated 24 to 48 hours from when they’re submitted — or even later. If you comment in the evening or on the weekend, please be patient. We’ll get to it when we’re back in the office.
We’re not interested in managing squeaky wheels, and even if we wanted to, we don't have time to address every single commenter’s grievance.
Try as we might, we will make mistakes. We’ll fail to catch aliases, mistakenly allow folks to exceed the comment limit and occasionally miss false statements. If that’s going to upset you, it’s probably best to just stick with our journalism and avoid the comments section.
We don’t mediate disputes between commenters. If you have concerns about another commenter, please don’t bring them to us.

The bottom line:

If you repeatedly push the boundaries, make unreasonable demands, get caught lying or generally cause trouble, we will stop approving your comments — maybe forever. Such moderation decisions are not negotiable or subject to explanation. If civil and constructive conversation is not your goal, then our comments section is not for you.