Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Project Veritas Shows How Easy It Was To Vote The Dead In New Hampshire Primary

Democrats have nationally fought efforts by states like Indiana to enact Voter ID laws that require registered voters to present a government-issued photo ID in order to receive a ballot to cast in an election. Yesterday, James O'Keefe's Project Veritas entered multiple polling places in the Granite State where yesterday's first in the nation presidential primary was being conducted. Using the names of known dead persons on the registered voting lists, election officials repeatedly handed ballots to persons claiming to be a dead person who had not been removed yet from the registered voter rolls. Repeatedly, the election officials were offered a photo identification only to be told that the state makes no such requirement.

In South Carolina where the Obama Justice Department is seeking to block enforcement of a Voter ID enacted in that state recently, state officials uncovered the names of more than 900 dead people who state election records indicated had cast votes in recent elections. The state's registered voting rolls contain the names of 30,000 dead people and more than 230,000 people who have no driver's license or a state-issued identification card.

It is just mind boggling that any intelligent person could continue to argue against a simple requirement of asking a person to show photo identification to prove they are who they claim to be when they cast votes in elections. The Project Veritas video makes so abundantly clear why Democrats don't want Voter ID laws. These election workers have no idea who these people are that are showing up to vote.


Pete Boggs said...

Stunningly corrupt!

Hoosier in the Heartland said...

It is NOT a simple requirement.

Coming up with a government-issued photo ID is a complex process, especially for those who don't drive, are handicapped or live at or below the poverty level.

And, define "recent" as in the case of South Carolina. Which elections, when? Over how many years? The charge is startlingly non-specific.

Pete Boggs said...

Wow HIH, if getting an ID is "complex," the affected / confused shouldn't vote.