Proof That Illegals Voted in Latest Elections In Georgia

A local news station was able to finally prove that people ineligible to vote were indeed registered and allowed to vote in recent national elections in Georgia. This is something our former Secretary of State, now candidate for governor, Karen Handel, had pursued during her tenure as Secretary of State, only to be denied by the courts.


Our legislature passed a couple of different pieces of legislation designed to screen the voter roles at the behest of her office, only to have a court strike down the laws. A key piece of the reason that the courts turned the laws down is because southern states are still having to deal a particularly nasty piece of legislation, reminiscent of some of the draconian measures imposed on them during Reconstruction, known as the Voter Rights Act.

This news agency was able to do what the government was forbidden to do, which is to crosscheck a couple of different data sources to determine if any people were registered and then subsequently voted illegally. Let's be clear, not all of those who voted were in the country illegally--they may have been here on some sort of visa or work program; however, they were not citizens and therefore not allowed to vote.

The biggest contributor to this being allowed appears to be the Motor Voter legislation. These people were registered to vote while applying for a driver's license. It is still not clear who it was that encouraged and pushed these people to vote. Somebody had to actively seek them out and get them to the polls, as the testimony of one of the women who cast an illegal vote reveals.

The case once again points out the inefficiency of government, which in this case was severely hampered by the liberal attorneys and courts which aided and abetted if not the illegal activity, at the very least prevented the Secretary of State's office from investigating the matter.

Kudos to WSB for devoting the resources and time to getting the data and then poring over it to do all the crosschecking. A big pfffttt for still not allowing your videos to be embedded, forcing me to link to your site instead.

NY Times: Requiring Voter ID Harsh, Extraordinarily Strict

The new York Times editors are doing a bit of preemptive whining before the 2008 election.

You would think by the rhetoric voters would be required to hand over their first born before they're able to vote.

All of it over Indiana requiring valid identification.

The horror of it all.

Minorities, poor, elderly and handicapped hardest hit, of course.

In 2000, the Supreme Court decided that George W. Bush was the winner. In 2008, the court may once again have something to say about the election — but this time, it may do it before the votes are even cast.

The court will hear oral arguments next month in a critically important election case. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board is a challenge to Indiana’s harsh voter ID law.

The law, pushed through by Republicans in 2005, requires registered voters who cast ballots in person to provide current government-issued photo ID.

Indiana’s law is extraordinarily strict: it requires voters to have not just photo ID, but very specific forms of it — most likely a driver’s license or an ID card issued by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

At first blush, voter ID laws may not seem so unreasonable. But the fact is, a substantial number of Americans who are registered to vote do not have official government photo IDs. That is particularly true of poor people, racial minorities, the elderly, and the disabled — many of whom do not drive and do not have drivers’ licenses.

My heart just breaks. An effort to prevent voter fraud is being decried by the same people who turned a blind eye to voter fraud, most often by Demmocrats.

Well, these folks have 11 months to get their act together. If they can't get a valid government ID in that time, it's their problem.

The piece continue in heart-tugging fashion.

If the 2008 election is close, Americans will be looking at things like the decision in this case to figure out what provided the victory margin. It would be tragic if a sharply divided Supreme Court decided a presidential election for the second time in eight years.