VOTE FRAUD SCANDAL EXPLODES - DEMS GET EXPOSED AFTER HIDING THE TRUTH
New Jersey’s 6,600 Noncitizen Registrations Put State and Vendor at Odds—But IDEMIA’s Statement Does Not Show Who Failed
New Jersey has a voter-registration problem that is serious enough without making it larger than the evidence supports.
The state has acknowledged that roughly 6,600 people who told the Motor Vehicle Commission they were not U.S. citizens nevertheless ended up on the voter rolls during a one-year period under the previous administration.
Fewer than 400 of them later cast ballots, according to the state’s preliminary review.
That disclosure alone raises obvious questions about how a system designed to screen for voter eligibility allowed thousands of ineligible registrations to move forward.
The argument now is over where the failure actually occurred.
Gov. Mikie Sherrill initially described the episode as a serious software error in New Jersey’s motor-vehicle system and said the state would replace the vendor involved, IDEMIA.
IDEMIA then pushed back.
The company said its role was to collect and transmit information through the Motor Vehicle Commission system, while the New Jersey Department of State’s Division of Elections was ultimately responsible for verifying voter eligibility.
“Information submitted by IDEMIA must still be validated and adjudicated by the Division of Elections,” the company said.
That statement matters because it complicates the simplest version of the state’s explanation.
But it does not establish the much broader claim now circulating in political commentary: that state election workers knowingly reviewed 6,600 applications from self-identified noncitizens and deliberately registered them anyway.
The evidence released so far does not show that.
IDEMIA has said the affected files contained the applicants’ self-reported information, including that they wanted to register to vote while also answering that they were not citizens.
A Sherrill spokesperson, meanwhile, has said the software problem may have caused records that should not have advanced through the voter-registration process to be transmitted to the Division of Elections in the first place.
Those are not the same explanation.
They point to different possible failure points inside a system that involves the Motor Vehicle Commission, a private technology vendor and state election officials.
The distinction is why an investigation is necessary.
The known facts show that ineligible registrations occurred.
They do not yet show whether the root cause was a software defect, a flawed state workflow, an inadequate eligibility check, human review failures or some combination of those problems.
They also do not show intentional misconduct by the 6,600 people themselves.
Sherrill has said the affected individuals indicated that they were not citizens and were registered through no fault of their own.
The registrations occurred between June 2023 and June 2024, before Sherrill took office in January 2026.
The state’s preliminary analysis found fewer than 400 of the affected people later voted.
Those voters were not concentrated in one political party.
According to Sherrill, they included Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated voters and were scattered across New Jersey.
The governor also said the state had no evidence that the error changed the outcome of an election.
That does not make the improper registrations unimportant.
Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, and New Jersey requires U.S. citizenship to vote in its elections.
A system that places thousands of people on the rolls despite an explicit noncitizen response has failed at one of the most basic eligibility checks in election administration.
The proper question is therefore not whether the failure deserves scrutiny.
It plainly does.
The more difficult question is what the available evidence proves about responsibility and intent.
That is where IDEMIA’s response has become politically significant.
By emphasizing that the Division of Elections must validate and adjudicate transmitted registration information, the company is arguing that responsibility does not end with the vendor’s software.
New Jersey officials have not accepted that framing.
The result is now a public dispute between the state and the contractor over which part of the registration pipeline allowed the records to become active voter registrations.
The Justice Department is asking many of the same questions from a different direction.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the Civil Rights Division, demanded detailed information about the roughly 6,600 people after Sherrill disclosed the error.
The department requested names, nationalities, addresses, registration details and information about the fewer than 400 people who cast ballots.
The demand also became part of a broader legal fight between the Trump administration and New Jersey over access to voter-roll data.
That chronology is important.
The federal probe did not suddenly begin because IDEMIA revealed that state election officials had intentionally approved noncitizens.
DOJ moved after New Jersey itself publicly acknowledged the registration failure, while IDEMIA’s statement added another disputed account of where responsibility may lie.
Whether federal investigators can determine exactly how the 6,600 records progressed through the system will depend on more than a press statement from either side.
They will need the software specifications, transmission logs, eligibility rules, audit records and internal procedures used by the agencies and vendor at the time.
That is also why the phrase “software glitch” should not be treated as a complete explanation yet.
It may ultimately describe an important part of what happened.
It may also prove incomplete if state controls that were supposed to catch bad records failed after transmission.
IDEMIA’s statement creates a legitimate reason to investigate that second possibility.
It does not, by itself, prove a deliberate decision to register noncitizens.
The controversy has now expanded beyond New Jersey because IDEMIA also has a major relationship with California’s Department of Motor Vehicles.
California awarded the company a contract in 2022 that can run for up to 12 years and covers driver’s licenses, identification cards and other DMV technology and services.
IDEMIA also began issuing California’s redesigned driver’s licenses and identification cards in 2025.
That shared vendor relationship is a relevant reason for officials to ask how the company’s systems are used in each state.
It is not evidence that California uses the same voter-registration workflow that failed in New Jersey.
California runs its own Motor Voter program, under which eligible DMV customers who indicate that they meet voter qualifications can have registration information transmitted electronically to the Secretary of State.
No identical 6,600-person error has been confirmed in California.
There is therefore no factual basis at this point for saying the New Jersey failure proves California has the same defect.
California is nevertheless already in a separate fight with the Trump administration over noncitizen voter-registration claims.
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has said a preliminary federal review identified as many as 190,832 potential noncitizens on California’s voter rolls.
DHS has also cited potential matches totaling more than 250,000 across California, New Jersey, Nevada and Pennsylvania.
Those figures are not the same thing as confirmed findings that 250,000 noncitizens are registered to vote.
The administration has described them as potential matches requiring state verification, and it has not publicly provided enough detail for outsiders to independently reproduce the full analysis.
CBS News reported that a White House official said the four-state estimate was based on an analysis of commercial databases, a method election specialists warn can produce false positives, including people whose citizenship status has changed through naturalization.
California Secretary of State Shirley Weber has rejected the suggestion that the federal figures should simply be accepted as established fact.
She has said noncitizen voting is exceedingly rare and that her office would review DHS’s methodology while protecting Californians’ personal information.
That position does not answer every question about California’s rolls.
It does mean the 190,832 figure remains a federal allegation under review rather than a verified count comparable to New Jersey’s state-confirmed 6,600 registrations.
Conflating those two categories makes the story less accurate, not more alarming.
New Jersey has a documented failure with identified records and a preliminary count of ballots cast by affected registrants.
California has a disputed federal estimate whose methodology remains contested.
Those are different evidentiary situations.
The SAVE America Act has become another part of the political argument.
The House-passed legislation would impose new documentary proof-of-citizenship and voter-identification requirements for federal elections and would expand federal access to voter-registration data.
But as of now, the House-passed SAVE America Act is not federal law.
Congress has separately considered using federal grant money to encourage states to adopt parts of the proposal, including through a reconciliation package that contemplated billions of dollars in incentives.
That is different from saying every state is already legally required to comply with the SAVE America Act in order to receive federal election funding.
Secretary Mullin has separately threatened funding consequences and other penalties for states that reject the administration’s election-security demands, but those assertions are part of an ongoing legal and political fight over federal authority.
The strongest case for further scrutiny therefore does not require overstating what has already been proven.
New Jersey’s own disclosure is serious enough.
Thousands of people who explicitly indicated they were not citizens were placed on voter rolls.
Hundreds of those people appear to have cast ballots.
The vendor says the state retained responsibility for validating eligibility, while the state has blamed a software failure in the motor-vehicle system.
DOJ is seeking records, state officials have launched their own review and lawmakers are demanding information from IDEMIA.
Those facts justify a detailed accounting of the entire registration pipeline.
What they do not justify yet is a conclusion that New Jersey election officials intentionally registered noncitizens, that California has the same defect because it uses the same identity vendor, or that every person flagged by DHS is a confirmed ineligible voter.
A successful investigation should be able to answer narrower and more useful questions.
What exact software or workflow rule allowed a noncitizen response to proceed?
What data did IDEMIA transmit?
What validation occurred after the records reached election officials?
Were automatic controls supposed to reject those records, and if so, why did they fail?
How many of the affected people actually voted, in which elections, and what legal responsibility attaches when the state itself created the registration error?
And what changes have been made so the same failure cannot happen again?
Those answers would tell voters much more than the current blame fight between Trenton, Washington and the vendor.
The New Jersey episode has already demonstrated that automatic-registration systems can produce real eligibility failures when safeguards break down.
It has not demonstrated that every disputed federal match in another state is valid or that a common DMV contractor means two states share the same election system.
The difference is not a technicality.
It is the line between investigating a documented failure and using that failure to prove claims the available evidence has not yet established.
For New Jersey, the immediate task is to determine who or what allowed 6,600 ineligible registrations through and to fix that process.
May you like
For California, the task is to test the federal allegations against reliable state and federal citizenship data rather than assume either side is correct.
And for voters, the useful standard should be the same in both places: identify the error, show the evidence and do not call an allegation a finding before the verification is finished.
