Report: Democrat running for NJ governor submitted petition with all bogus signatures – 1,951 of them, to be exact

TRENTON, NJ- Let this sink in…HR1 is a bill proposed by Democrats which would prevent states from cleaning up their voter rolls, such as removing people who moved, dead people, etc.

One Democrat in New Jersey is already trying to get a head start on that proposal, having been snagged using fake signatures on an online petition, NJ-101.5 is reporting.

Lisa McCormick, a self-proclaimed “progressive Democrat” (think dingbats like AOC, Tlaib, Omar and Pressley) has built a track record of attempting to challenge Democratic politicians, with a solid history of never being able to accomplish it. Hey, but she gets a “T” for trying.

McCormick attempted to file papers to run against incumbent Gov. Phil Murphy (she can’t be much worse) in the upcoming primary in June. She was assisted in the endeavor from her campaign manager and partner, Jim Devine.

According to records, McCormick “gathered” 1,951 signatures. One factor that may have initially flagged officials that something was wrong was that out of that 1,951 signatures, around 85% had last names that started with “A” or “B,” according to the New Jersey Democratic State Committee, which challenged her petitions.

It’s almost like the numbers were pulled right out of a phone book or something (do they still have those?).

Due to the pandemic, electronic submissions have been allowed in place of traditional filings, which has resulted in a number of challenges verifying information.

This little tidbit is interesting because part of HR-1 would mandate electronic registration. So apparently some Democrats recognize such a system is ripe for fraud.

On Monday, a hearing was held by the Office of Administrative Law and included testimony five people whose names appeared on McCormick’s electronic petition. All five said they never signed it, according to New Jersey Globe Editor David Wildstein.

Included among the names on the digital petition submitted by McCormick’s campaign:

  • A person by the name of “First Name Middle Name Last Name,” who lives at “Address, City, State, Zipcode.”
  • Someone who spelled and signed their name as “Jose8.”
  • And a Seton Hall law professor who passed away in 2015, according to NJDSC attorney Raj Parikh.

The Democratic committee has called for McCormick’s petition to be denied, which was requested in a letter to Division of Elections Director Robert Giles on Friday. The request came from Parikh.

NJDSC officials also analyzed document metadata submitted by McCormick, and it showed the petitions were created at the same time and in the same Microsoft Word document.

Judge Jeffrey Rabin said a decision would be forthcoming by Tuesday on whether McCormick would remain on the ballot, while Rabin also stated his believe that McCormick and Devine “intentionally skipped” the hearing.

According to, that decision did indeed come Tuesday, as two judges in two separate hearings ruled that neither McCormick or a second challenger, Roger Bacon had secured the necessary 1,000 signed petitions to qualify for the June ballot. In the case of McCormick, Judge Rabin found NONE of the 1,951 signatures she submitted are valid.

McCormick was unfazed, saying:

“I am surprised that they are so afraid of someone who won’t raise money and is armed only with the truth [apparently except for her petition signatures], but the people still have a chance to write in my name on June 8,” McCormick said in responding to the ruling.

Prior to Rabin’s ruling, Murphy said he wouldn’t comment on the specifics of McCormick’s petitions but said he believed it to be “smart” to continue electronically filing petitions during the “public health crisis.”

“I assume folks overwhelmingly take that responsibility seriously and lawfully,” said Murphy at the state’s pandemic briefing on Monday.

He also said that it was unclear if the procedure would remain modified by the general election in the fall.

As noted earlier, McCormick has made something of a career running against Democrats. She did enjoy a rather strong showing against Sen. Bob Menendez in the 2018 Democratic primary.

Last year, she ran and lost in a Congressional battle in New Jersey’s 12th District in an all-mail-in ballot primary last July.

During that campaign against U.S. Rep. Bonne Watson Coleman, Coleman’s team accused McCormick and Levine of creating “several fake websites, email accounts and virtual personas in an attempt to smear” the incumbent, as recently reported in the Daily Princetonian.

McCormick also had several unsuccessful runs for various positions when she was a resident of Rahway.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

In case you are not familiar with HR1, we did a report on it last month, where 20 attorneys general across the United States came out in opposition to the scheme. For more on that, we invite you to:


The following contains editorial content written by a retired Chief of Police and current staff writer for Law Enforcement Today. 

WASHINGTON, DC- Article II, Section I, Clause II of the United States Constitution reads:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.”

Read that again. Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct…

Not governors…not judges…and certainly not Congress…Legislatures of Each State…period.

We have previously reported on H.R.1, which Democrats have cunningly called the “For the People Act of 2021.”

What it should be called is, “For Codifying All the Election Fraud of 2020 Act of 2021” or the “For Getting Democrats Elected in Perpetuity Act of 2021.” Because it is anything but “for the people.”

Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News did a dive into the bill:


Twenty attorneys general agree, and signed a letter addressed to House and Senate leaders asking them to oppose the bill, which was passed along party lines late Wednesday in the dark of night.

The twenty agree that the act is unconstitutional due to imposing a number of what they called “alarming mandates” which would lead to the federalization of state elections.

Breitbart is reporting that prior to the bill being passed, 20 attorneys general led by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) dispatched a letter addressed to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Senate Majority Leader Chuckie Schumer (D-NY) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

According to the letter, H.R. 1 “betrays several Constitutional deficiencies and alarming mandates that, if passed, would federalize state elections and impose burdensome costs and regulations on state and local officials,” they wrote, while detailing the above article of the Constitution, as well as the Electors Clause of Article II, which gives the states…not Congress…the primary role in conducting federal elections for House and Senate, with an even larger role in presidential elections.

“The Act would invert that constitutional structure, commandeer state resources, confuse and muddle elections procedures, and erode faith in our elections and systems of governance,” they wrote, while asking lawmakers to address the measure’s numerous “vulnerabilities.”

The chief state law enforcement officials continued that H.R. 1 “implicates the Electors Clause” by regulating elections for president and vice president.

They continued, focusing on the “severe constitutional hurdles” the proposed law faces due to its “regulation of congressional elections, including by mandating mail-in voting, requiring states to accept late ballots, overriding state voter identification (“ID”) laws, and mandating that states conduct redistricting through unelected commissions.”

In identifying the proposal’s limitations on voter ID laws as ostensibly the most “egregious” portion of the act, while noting that a majority of states have some form of voter ID law:

“Yet the Act would dismantle meaningful voter ID laws by allowing a statement, as a substitute for prior-issued, document-backed identification, to “attest[] to the individual’s identity and…that the individual is eligible to vote in the election.”

This does little to ensure that voters are who they say they are. Worse, it vitiates the capacity of voter ID requirements to protect against improper interference with voting rights.

Before the advent of voter ID laws, partisans stationed at polling places could challenge voters based only on suspicions about identity, a process that prompted concerns about voter intimidation.

Robust voter ID laws, however, require all voters to present photo identification, i.e., objective, on-the-spot confirmation of the right to vote that immediately refutes bad-faith challenges based on vaguely articulated suspicions.

Fair election laws treat all voters equally. By that standard, the Act is not a fair election law.

They noted that “government-issued photo identification has been the global standard for documentary identification for decades,” noting that “nearly twenty years ago” the Help America Vote Act had required proof of identification for “first-time voters who register by mail without proof of identification.”

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

The attorneys general also called attention to potential issues with automatic voter registration, limitations on how states manage voter rolls, as well as calls for states to “undertake congressional redistricting by way of so-called ‘independent’ commissions.”

“At least when legislatures draw boundary lines voters may punish egregious behavior at the next election; not so with government-by-commission, which trades accountability for mythical expertise and disinterest,” they wrote.

They continued that the reason for the proposal was to end so-called “political gerrymandering” while the real reason was the “incoherent supposition that drawing congressional districts is something other than a political act.”

Going further, they noted that “as with any legislation, the redrawing of congressional districts “requires officials to balance legitimate competing considerations, and in so doing advance some political interests over others.”

 They also noted that the act “takes a one-sided approach to governing and usurps states’ authority over elections,” they wrote:

With confidence in elections at a record low, the country’s focus should be on building trust in the electoral process. Around the nation, the 2020 general elections generated mass confusion and distrust—problems that the Act would only exacerbate. Should the Act become law, we will seek legal remedies to protect the Constitution, the sovereignty of all states, our elections and the rights of our citizens.

In a statement to Fox News, Rokita said:

“This monstrosity of a bill betrays the Constitution, dangerously federalizes state elections, and undermines the integrity of the ballot box,” he wrote.

“As a former chief election officer, and now an Attorney General, I know this would be a disaster for election integrity and confidence in the processes that have been developed over time to instill confidence in the idea of ‘one person, one vote.’”

In the joint letter to congressional leaders, the attorneys general outlined the clear differences between Article I and Article II of the Constitution, calling attention to Article II which gives state legislatures the authority to determine how electors for president and vice president are selected.

Article I they wrote “says that both States and Congress have the power to regulate the ‘time, place and manner’ of congressional elections.”

“That distinction is not an accident of drafting,” they wrote. “After extensive debate, the Constitution’s Framers deliberately excluded Congress from deciding how presidential electors would be chosen in order to avoid presidential dependence on Congress for position and authority.”

The AGs also addressed an 1892 Supreme Court case, McPherson v. Blacker which “[upheld] a Michigan statute apportioning presidential electors by district.”

“The exclusivity of state power to ‘define the method’ of choosing presidential electors means that Congress may not force states to permit presidential voting by mail or curbside voting, for example,” they wrote.

They also noted a 2019 opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, in which he “noted with respect to congressional elections, the Framers ‘assign[ed] the issue to the state legislatures, expressly checked and balanced by the Federal Congress.” They then slammed the bill as using Congress not to act “as a check but is instead overreaching by seizing the role of principal election regulator.”

In essence what congressional Democrats are trying to do is to codify all of the weapons used in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and others to influence last November’s election. What it would accomplish is it wound ensure Democrats would win national and Congressional elections in perpetuity.

If we actually had faith in the Supreme Court it would seem to be this is a no-brainer to be found unconstitutional. However the current court has not shown the intestinal fortitude to hold up this document.

This is the biggest threat on our freedom and liberty perhaps in American history.

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First

The post Report: Democrat running for NJ governor submitted petition with all bogus signatures – 1,951 of them, to be exact appeared first on Law Enforcement Today.

Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Pat Droney

This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
A better search engine:
Visit our Discussion Forum at

Follow us: