Friday, November 12, 2010

Did Illegals Decide Outcome Of CT Elections?


National news has given attention to the voter shenanigans in CT, specifically in our large cities like Bridgeport. Those are cities that happen to be sanctuary cities that hand out ID cards to illegal aliens and are most likely used to prove residency - even at the polls.

World Net Daily printed an article, "Illegals made Democrat governor in Connecticut? 'Sanctuary city' issued thousands of IDs accepted for voter registration".
It states:
... amid the numerous reported allegations, little has been said about the possibility that illegal aliens decided a gubernatorial race in which the candidates officially were separated by just 5,810 votes out of more than 1 million cast, [Martha] Dean told WND.

Dean noted that both the mayors of New Haven and Hartford have declared their cities "sanctuary cities" for illegal aliens. She pointed out that over the past three years, New Haven has issued ID cards to about 15,000 people, ostensibly to enable them to use public services such as the library.

New Haven, Dean argued, has allowed people registering to vote to use the ID cards as proof of identification.

"While we have no proof that the recipients of these ID cards are illegal aliens, it seems likely since the mayor's argument for the cards focused on helping illegals set up bank accounts and use other city services," she said.

Anyone of voting age who is in the U.S. legally does not need an ID card, she reasoned, since he or she already has one or more forms of photo ID.

Dean said many in Connecticut believe a random sampling of the voter list to check citizenship would reveal massive voting by illegal aliens.

"The right to vote is a fundamental constitutional right," she told WND. "That right is abridged unlawfully when illegal aliens are allowed to cancel out the votes of American citizens and, in some cases, determine elections."

Our State Constitution in CT clearly states:
ARTICLE IX.
Section 1 of article sixth of the constitution is amended to read as follows: Every citizen of the United States who has attained the age of eighteen years, who is a bona fide resident of the town in which he seeks to be admitted as an elector and who takes such oath, if any, as may be prescribed by law, shall be qualified to be an elector.
Adopted November 24, 1976.

State statute (Sec. 9-12) says this about who can vote
:

(a) Each citizen of the United States who has attained the age of eighteen years, and who is a bona fide resident of the town to which the citizen applies for admission as an elector shall, on approval by the registrars of voters or town clerk of the town of residence of such citizen, as prescribed by law, be an elector, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. For purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to have attained the age of eighteen years on the day of the person's eighteenth birthday and a person shall be deemed to be a bona fide resident of the town to which the citizen applies for admission as an elector if such person's dwelling unit is located within the geographic boundaries of such town. No mentally incompetent person shall be admitted as an elector.

(b) Any citizen who will have attained the age of eighteen years on or before the day of a regular election may apply for admission as an elector. If such citizen is found to be qualified the citizen shall become an elector on the day of the citizen's eighteenth birthday. The registrars shall add the name of any person applying under this subsection, if found qualified, to the registry list and, if applicable, to the enrollment list, together with the effective date of his registration. The registrars may place the name of each such person at the end of the registry and enrollment lists for the voting district.

Furthermore, Sec. 7-6 states who is eligible to vote.
Sec. 7-6. Eligibility to vote. At any town meeting other than a regular or special town election or at any meeting of any fire, sewer or school district or any other municipal subdivision of any town incorporated by any special act, any person who is an elector of such town may vote and any citizen of the United States of the age of eighteen years or more who, jointly or severally, is liable to the town, district or subdivision for taxes assessed against him on an assessment of not less than one thousand dollars on the last-completed grand list of such town, district or subdivision, or who would be so liable if not entitled to an exemption under subdivision (17), (19), (22), (23), (25) or (26) of section 12-81, may vote, unless restricted by the provisions of any special act relating to such town, district or subdivision.

Yet, it appears that Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz has instructed registrars across the state NOT to check citizenship status upon registration other than to have the person registering sign the registration form and swear. After my town's registrar told me she could not request to see proof of citizenship when registering someone to vote, I spoke to an attorney at SOTS and asked him why registrars may not ask for actual documented proof of citizenship, and he told me that having them sign and swear "was enough", and that "people can be challenged at the polls" - but we all know that that is not normally done.

That being said, the Office of Legislative Research wrote a report in 2000 that states:
Connecticut law does not require voter registration applicants to show proof of citizenship, though they must attest under penalty of perjury that they are United States citizens and eligible to vote. ..... Current law permits admitting officials to ask an applicant to prove his "place of birth" when registering an applicant in person and it designates the documents that constitute conclusive proof of U.S. citizenship. To register, a person must indicate on the registration form whether he is a U.S. citizen.

Voting - being an elector - in this state requires by our Constitution and our statutes that you must be a citizen of the United States, yet registrars are apparently prohibited by SOTS to verify citizenship upon registration. (at least this is what MY registrar said she was told).

We've had the ACORN fiasco with crazy registrations being handed in by ACORN workers, along with having dead people and certain felons on the registration lists.

As for felons who are not properly registered; well no one really seems to check the registration rolls versus criminal records because there isn't the staff to do that (so they say).

The system of verifying eligible electors in CT is broken, and the result of not following the Rule of Law means that these elections are not truly valid.

It's high time someone challenges this in court, and it is high time SOTS fixes their gross oversight regarding who can and cannot vote legally.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Until and unless some people are convicted and go to jail this will continue. If you cannot get the police to do a real investigation and get the DA to charge someone then this will continue to destroy our republic. It is too late to fix the stolen election but it is not too late to convict people who broke the law. The voter roles are public it is going to take some work but dig in and expose some of these illegal voters.

boremetotears.com said...

Do you have links to neutral, non-partisan sources making strong fact-based cases for this allegation? I did a quick google search and I only found characterically unreliable sources: wnd, judicial watch, etc (on the right) and an author out with a new book (on the left)...

Judy Aron said...

Hmmm... you know... any source can be described as non-neutral and partisan if you want to go there.

I mean even SNOPES has been exposed as funded by George Soros... and Fact Check is also a Left Wing funded affair... and those have become to some as "go-to" sources.

What sources in particular do you feel are credible?

Anonymous said...

I agree, until people go to jail for voter fraud, it will continue. Have you noticed that all articles (now & past) on voter fraud is about the democratic party?

Anonymous said...

Snopes was started by David Mikkelson and his wife in 1996. They still run it. Their funding comes from advertising.

If you have any factual information to the contrary, please share it here.

Judy Aron said...

It has been reported that the Mikkelson's are extremely liberal and have refused to disclose all of their funding sources. The sources are undisclosed because Snopes refuses to disclose all of their funding sources. The Democratic Alliance, a funding channel for Marxist billionaires like George Soros, directs funds to an "Internet Propaganda Arm" pushing their views. The Democratic Alliance has been reported to instruct fundees not to disclose their funding source. Information on their site has been found to be biased and there were criticisms that the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues. They were instead promoting the Liberal spin.

If you want more information contact: Alan Strong CEO/Chairman
Commercial Programming Systems, Inc.
4400 Coldwater Canyon Ave. Suite
200 Studio City, CA. 91604-5039

Personally, I have never trusted Snopes since I learned of them and I trust them less on matters that are political in nature.