RedState91%

Non-Citizen Voting Scandal Gets Worse: Software Giant Blames Election Officials, CA Gets Dragged In 76%

By Rusty Weiss90%

7/22/2026, 7:15:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 33 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Confirmation Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 22.4% saturation with 184 hits. Analysis detected 1,927 faulty-reasoning hits from 823 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67.2% and a BS Rank of 76% (5,433 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 75.20% of the article peer group.

New Jersey's non-citizen voting scandal has taken a major twist after the software company that Governor Mikie Sherrill (D) tried to blame is now firing back, pointing the finger squarely at state election officials who were supposed to verify who actually gets to vote. 
What began as Sherrill’s public admission that more than 6,600 non-citizens ended up on the voter rolls—with nearly 400 casting ballots between June 2023 and June 2024—has quickly devolved into classic bureaucratic finger-pointing. 
And now the controversy is rippling into California, where the same vendor at the center of New Jersey’s “glitch” has long handled DMV operations. 
Sherrill, who took office this year, blamed the error on the previous administration of Gov. 
Phil Murphy (D) and said a preliminary review showed that IDEMIA, the software company that provides driver’s license and voter registration systems in the Garden State, was responsible. 
“This entire situation is unacceptable,” Sherrill said. 
“It’s unacceptable that the vendor released software with such a glaring error, it’s unacceptable that the MVC (Motor Vehicle Commission) took a year to get this issue fixed, and it’s unacceptable that no one in the previous administration brought this to light, demanded accountability, or took action when it happened years ago.” 
The company, however, insisted its role was strictly limited to transmitting information from the MVC to the state’s Division of Elections. 
"IDEMIA’s role is to transmit information through the motor vehicle system. 
The voter registration information is transmitted to the New Jersey Department of State, Division of Elections, which is ultimately responsible for verifying eligibility to vote,” the company said in a statement. 
“Information submitted by IDEMIA must still be validated and adjudicated by the Division of Elections." 
Far from a simple “software error” on their end, the firm essentially argued that state officials dropped the ball by failing to properly check the citizenship status of thousands of applicants who had already identified themselves as non-citizens. 
Still, Sherrill says the state will be phasing out use of the IDEMIA software. 
The controversy, though, is now seeping into California, where the same vendor has a major contract with the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles. 
California announced a partnership with IDEMIA in 2022 to modernize its DMV operations, including issuing all driver’s licenses and identification cards starting in late 2025. 
The contract was for 12 years, while a press release from the company indicated they had been providing physical ID cards and technology to the Golden State for more than 64 years. 
IDEMIA CEO Rob Gardner announced at the time that the partnership was "not just about aesthetics" but "about raising the bar on security and trust." 
While no identical software error has been confirmed, the New Jersey scandal has prompted fresh questions about whether California’s system could have similar vulnerabilities in its automatic voter registration process—especially as the Trump administration and Department of Homeland Security have flagged tens of thousands of potential non-citizen registrations in California and demanded greater scrutiny of its voter rolls. 
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said states would have to follow provisions of the SAVE America Act to receive as much as $1 billion in federal funds going forward. 
“We are going to make our security enhancements mandatory, meaning that if these states want a grant and they want to be reimbursed to work or to run federal elections, they’re going to have to implement security issues,” Mullin said. 
While the controversy now swirls in California, Secretary of State Shirley N. 
Weber insisted following President Trump's primetime election integrity speech on Thursday that "non-citizen voting remains exceedingly rare." 
"In California, election officials work every day to maintain accurate voter rolls and ensure that only eligible voters are registered," Weber declared. 
Sherrill, meanwhile, also downplayed the severity of the scandal and accused the Trump administration of trying to "weaponize elections for political gain." 
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson fired back, suggesting Democrats are, and have been, lying to the public. 
“Democrats and their media allies have repeatedly said it is impossible for noncitizens to register to vote, let alone cast a ballot. 
Time and again, they have been proven wrong," she asserted. 
"As President Trump has said, there is nothing more important than the integrity of our elections. 
And this latest incident underscores the absolute necessity of the SAVE America Act.” 
Officials in New Jersey and California can deflect all they want, but this story underscores what Republicans have warned about for years. 
Without real verification and accountability, non-citizen voting remains a tangible vulnerability. 
The American people deserve a real fix. 
The SAVE America Act would be a good place to start. 
*Editor’s Note: Republicans are fighting for election integrity by requiring proper identification to vote. 
* 
*Help us continue to report why Democrats oppose such obvious measures by joining RedState VIP and using promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
* 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.0%Rusty Weiss: 9.6%RedState: 7.0%Confirmation Bias16.0%This article: 6.8%Rusty Weiss: 0.7%RedState: 0.8%Anchoring Bias6.8%This article: 15.6%Rusty Weiss: 3.9%RedState: 3.4%Availability Heuristic15.6%This article: 9.8%Rusty Weiss: 0.8%RedState: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic9.8%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.8%RedState: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 1.2%RedState: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.6%Rusty Weiss: 13.0%RedState: 9.2%Framing Effect16.6%This article: 0.9%Rusty Weiss: 0.5%RedState: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.9%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.4%RedState: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.0%RedState: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.7%Rusty Weiss: 0.4%RedState: 1.7%Optimism Bias1.7%This article: 2.1%Rusty Weiss: 2.0%RedState: 1.7%Pessimism Bias2.1%This article: 22.4%Rusty Weiss: 19.8%RedState: 13.9%Negativity Bias22.4%This article: 12.6%Rusty Weiss: 1.9%RedState: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias12.6%This article: 5.3%Rusty Weiss: 2.2%RedState: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error5.3%This article: 2.7%Rusty Weiss: 0.1%RedState: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias2.7%This article: 4.7%Rusty Weiss: 4.5%RedState: 4.7%In-Group Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 2.5%RedState: 3.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Rusty Weiss: 1.0%RedState: 2.0%Halo Effect3.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.8%RedState: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.1%RedState: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.9%Rusty Weiss: 1.5%RedState: 1.2%Recency Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.9%RedState: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.0%RedState: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 10.0%RedState: 6.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 2.3%RedState: 2.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.0%Rusty Weiss: 3.4%RedState: 3.3%Appeal to Authority13.0%This article: 6.2%Rusty Weiss: 2.7%RedState: 2.4%False Dilemma6.2%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 1.9%RedState: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.2%Rusty Weiss: 9.6%RedState: 10.1%Hasty Generalization14.2%This article: 2.9%Rusty Weiss: 1.3%RedState: 0.7%Red Herring2.9%This article: 5.2%Rusty Weiss: 1.5%RedState: 0.9%Bandwagon5.2%This article: 12.6%Rusty Weiss: 9.3%RedState: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion12.6%This article: 2.9%Rusty Weiss: 2.1%RedState: 1.8%Begging the Question2.9%This article: 7.0%Rusty Weiss: 4.9%RedState: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.0%This article: 2.7%Rusty Weiss: 3.1%RedState: 0.9%Tu Quoque2.7%This article: 4.6%Rusty Weiss: 2.5%RedState: 1.2%Burden of Proof4.6%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.1%RedState: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.4%RedState: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.0%Rusty Weiss: 2.0%RedState: 2.6%Anecdotal4.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.1%RedState: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.1%Rusty Weiss: 1.8%RedState: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.1%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.1%RedState: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.3%RedState: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.2%RedState: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.7%RedState: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.3%Rusty Weiss: 3.8%RedState: 2.4%Unattributed Quote1.3%This article: 1.3%Rusty Weiss: 2.3%RedState: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection1.3%This article: 9.6%Rusty Weiss: 24.5%RedState: 21.5%Biased Writer Voice9.6%This article: 8.6%Rusty Weiss: 4.5%RedState: 4.8%Indoctrination8.6%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.3%RedState: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Rusty Weiss: 14.5%RedState: 15.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.7%This article: 4.9%Rusty Weiss: 4.2%RedState: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.9%

823 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers41%attributed speech488writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageMikie Sherrill (D) • 7 words • 100.0% coverageMikie Sherrill (D) • 52 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageIDEMIA • 31 words • 0.0% coverageIDEMIA • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageMikie Sherrill (D) • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageRob Gardner • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 58 words • 100.0% coverageMarkwayne Mullin • 29 words • 0.0% coverageMarkwayne Mullin • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageShirley N. Weber • 17 words • 0.0% coverageShirley N. Weber • 22 words • 0.0% coverageMikie Sherrill (D) • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageAbigail Jackson • 22 words • 0.0% coverageAbigail Jackson • 10 words • 0.0% coverageAbigail Jackson • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAbigail Jackson • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mikie Sherrill (D)

100%flagged-word coverage
95 attributed words28% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.4 ptsWriter: 14.8%Mikie Sherrill (D): 7.4%7.4%Indoctrination-11.9 ptsWriter: 11.9%Mikie Sherrill (D): 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -9.6 ptsWriter: 9.6%Mikie Sherrill (D): 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.2 ptsWriter: 8.2%Mikie Sherrill (D): 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%Mikie Sherrill (D): 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%Mikie Sherrill (D): 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.