decades of court documets and decisions prove the republican party cheats

January 14, 2013



The Supreme Court refused to lift a consent decree that bars the Republican National Committee from targeting racial and ethnic minorities in its fight against voter fraud.
 
evince said:
that is NOT what the courts called it you lying fuck
Click to expand...

evince said:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/news/la-pn-supreme-court-rnc-voter-fraud-20130114



Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree

January 14, 2013|By David G. Savage



The Supreme Court refused to lift a consent decree that bars the Republican National Committee from targeting racial and ethnic minorities in its fight against voter fraud.

The Supreme Court refused to lift a consent decree that bars the Republican… (Caroyln Kaster / Associated…)


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has refused to lift a 30-year consent decree that bars the Republican National Committee from targeting racial and ethnic minorities in its efforts to end fraudulent voting.

The justices without comment turned down an appeal from RNC lawyers who said the decree has become “antiquated” and is “increasingly used as political weapon” by Democrats during national campaigns.

For their part, lawyers for the Democratic National Committee had argued that recent campaigns show the “consent degree remains necessary today.”

The court’s action is a victory for the DNC, and it comes after an election year in which the two parties regularly exchanged charges over “voter fraud” and “voter intimidation.” But most of the recent battles have been fought on the state level, and it is not clear whether the long-standing consent decree has had much impact.





The case began in 1981 when the RNC created a “national ballot security task force” that, among other things, undertook mailing campaigns targeted at black and Latino neighborhoods in New Jersey. If mailers were returned undelivered, party activists put those voters on a list to be challenged if they showed up to cast a ballot. In addition, the party was alleged to have hired off-duty law enforcement officers to “patrol” minority neighborhoods on election day.

The DNC sued the RNC in federal court, alleging its activities violated the Voting Rights Act and were intended to suppress voting among minorities. Rather than fight the charges in a trial, the RNC agreed to a consent decree promising to “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities … directed toward [election] districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic minority populations.”

The consent decree has remained in effect, and DNC lawyers say they have gone to court in states such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Pennsylvania to challenge Republican activities that appear to target mostly black precincts. Both sides agree, however, that the consent decree does not forbid “normal poll watching” by Republican officials.

The RNC has tried repeatedly to have the consent decree lifted, contending it interferes with its efforts to combat voter fraud. But a federal judge in New Jersey in 2009 ruled that it should remain in effect, and the U.S. Court of Appeals agreed last year.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, the RNC’s lawyers cited past decisions by the justices that ended long-standing court orders involving school desegregation and prison overcrowding. But the justices with no dissent dismissed the appeal in the case of RNC vs. DNC.
Click to expand...

:indeed:
 
Establishment said:
Because we're not allowed to combat voter fraud?
Click to expand...

This poor nitwit is convinced that verifying voter registrations is by some stretch, voter fraud.....

the idiot doesn't understand that verifying voter registrations prevents voter fraud.....especially Democrat voter fraud....
 
(1990 claim) The District Court found that the DNC failed to establish that the RNC conducted, participated in, or assisted in the post-card program.

(2004 claim) The RNC petitioned for rehearing en banc. We granted the petition for rehearing en banc the next day, Election Day, November 2, 2004. This Court vacated the panel's ruling and stayed the District Court's Order. Before the entire Court could hear the matter en banc, Malone cast her ballot without being challenged. After Malone voted without challenge, Justice Souter, in his capacity as Circuit Justice for the Third Circuit, denied Malone's application to the Supreme Court seeking reinstatement of the injunction. We dismissed the appeal as moot, without addressing the merits.

(2008 claim) By adding an eight-year expiration date, December 1, 2017, to the Decree, the District Court modified the Decree to remedy the inequity that it perceived to be caused by the lack of expiration date.

https://origin-www.bloomberglaw.com...an_Natl_Comm_673_F3d_192_3d_Cir_20?1470853904

That is the actual case above. Evince is a liar.
 
evince said:
that is what the entire court system of the USA called it
Click to expand...

Target them ?....does that mean they wanted to kill them.....

I remember 'target' meant that when Plain used it....or is that only count for conservatives ?

How did they 'target' them deshfool..??? You probably don't know do you....
 
Seahawk said:
(1990 claim) The District Court found that the DNC failed to establish that the RNC conducted, participated in, or assisted in the post-card program.

(2004 claim) The RNC petitioned for rehearing en banc. We granted the petition for rehearing en banc the next day, Election Day, November 2, 2004. This Court vacated the panel's ruling and stayed the District Court's Order. Before the entire Court could hear the matter en banc, Malone cast her ballot without being challenged. After Malone voted without challenge, Justice Souter, in his capacity as Circuit Justice for the Third Circuit, denied Malone's application to the Supreme Court seeking reinstatement of the injunction. We dismissed the appeal as moot, without addressing the merits.

(2008 claim) By adding an eight-year expiration date, December 1, 2017, to the Decree, the District Court modified the Decree to remedy the inequity that it perceived to be caused by the lack of expiration date.

https://origin-www.bloomberglaw.com...an_Natl_Comm_673_F3d_192_3d_Cir_20?1470853904

That is the actual case above. Evince is a liar.
Click to expand...

Liar implies she is aware of WTF shes talking about......take it from me....she is fucking clueless....

She don't know what the case was about or what the RNC was accused of doing....
 
evince said:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/news/la-pn-supreme-court-rnc-voter-fraud-20130114



Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree

January 14, 2013|By David G. Savage



The Supreme Court refused to lift a consent decree that bars the Republican National Committee from targeting racial and ethnic minorities in its fight against voter fraud.

The Supreme Court refused to lift a consent decree that bars the Republican… (Caroyln Kaster / Associated…)


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has refused to lift a 30-year consent decree that bars the Republican National Committee from targeting racial and ethnic minorities in its efforts to end fraudulent voting.

The justices without comment turned down an appeal from RNC lawyers who said the decree has become “antiquated” and is “increasingly used as political weapon” by Democrats during national campaigns.

For their part, lawyers for the Democratic National Committee had argued that recent campaigns show the “consent degree remains necessary today.”

The court’s action is a victory for the DNC, and it comes after an election year in which the two parties regularly exchanged charges over “voter fraud” and “voter intimidation.” But most of the recent battles have been fought on the state level, and it is not clear whether the long-standing consent decree has had much impact.





The case began in 1981 when the RNC created a “national ballot security task force” that, among other things, undertook mailing campaigns targeted at black and Latino neighborhoods in New Jersey. If mailers were returned undelivered, party activists put those voters on a list to be challenged if they showed up to cast a ballot. In addition, the party was alleged to have hired off-duty law enforcement officers to “patrol” minority neighborhoods on election day.

The DNC sued the RNC in federal court, alleging its activities violated the Voting Rights Act and were intended to suppress voting among minorities. Rather than fight the charges in a trial, the RNC agreed to a consent decree promising to “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities … directed toward [election] districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic minority populations.”

The consent decree has remained in effect, and DNC lawyers say they have gone to court in states such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Pennsylvania to challenge Republican activities that appear to target mostly black precincts. Both sides agree, however, that the consent decree does not forbid “normal poll watching” by Republican officials.

The RNC has tried repeatedly to have the consent decree lifted, contending it interferes with its efforts to combat voter fraud. But a federal judge in New Jersey in 2009 ruled that it should remain in effect, and the U.S. Court of Appeals agreed last year.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, the RNC’s lawyers cited past decisions by the justices that ended long-standing court orders involving school desegregation and prison overcrowding. But the justices with no dissent dismissed the appeal in the case of RNC vs. DNC.
Click to expand...

post 2
 
evince said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_Security_Task_Force



Ballot Security Task Force


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search


The National Ballot Security Task Force (BSTF) was a controversial group founded in 1981 by the Republican National Committee located in New Jersey, as a means prevent voter fraud in the gubernatorial election. The Ballot Security Task Force was alleged to have carried out 'voter-suppression' and intimidation.

The task force consisted of a group of armed, off-duty police officers wearing armbands, who were hired to patrol polling sites in African-American and Hispanic neighborhoods of Newark and Trenton.[1]

Initially, 45,000 letters were mailed (using an outdated voter registration list) to primarily Latino and African-American citizens.[2] These letters were later returned as non-deliverable and the 45,000 addresses were converted into a list of voters.[3] These voters were then challenged by the BSTF. In addition, the Republican National Committee filed a request for election supervisors to strike these voters from the rolls, but the commissioners of registration refused when they discovered that the RNC had used outdated information.[4]

On New Jersey's election day in 1981, the BSTF posted large signs, without identification but with an official appearance, reading


WARNING

THIS AREA IS BEING PATROLLED BY THE
NATIONAL BALLOT
SECURITY TASK FORCE
IT IS A CRIME TO FALSIFY A BALLOT OR

TO VIOLATE ELECTION LAWS[5]
Armed officers in the task force were drawn from the ranks of off-duty county deputy sheriffs and local police, who prominently displayed revolvers, two-way radios, and BSTF armbands. BSTF patrols challenged and questioned voters at the polls.[4] Democrat James J. Florio lost the gubernatorial election to Republican Thomas H. Kean by 1,797 votes.

A civil lawsuit was filed after the election, charging the RNC with illegal harassment and voter intimidation.[6] The suit was settled in 1982, when the state and national Republican parties signed a consent decree in U.S. District Court saying that they would not allow tactics that could intimidate Democratic voters, though they did not admit any wrongdoing
Click to expand...

post 5
 
evince said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_Security_Task_Force



Ballot Security Task Force


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search


The National Ballot Security Task Force (BSTF) was a controversial group founded in 1981 by the Republican National Committee located in New Jersey, as a means prevent voter fraud in the gubernatorial election. The Ballot Security Task Force was alleged to have carried out 'voter-suppression' and intimidation.

The task force consisted of a group of armed, off-duty police officers wearing armbands, who were hired to patrol polling sites in African-American and Hispanic neighborhoods of Newark and Trenton.[1]

Initially, 45,000 letters were mailed (using an outdated voter registration list) to primarily Latino and African-American citizens.[2] These letters were later returned as non-deliverable and the 45,000 addresses were converted into a list of voters.[3] These voters were then challenged by the BSTF. In addition, the Republican National Committee filed a request for election supervisors to strike these voters from the rolls, but the commissioners of registration refused when they discovered that the RNC had used outdated information.[4]

On New Jersey's election day in 1981, the BSTF posted large signs, without identification but with an official appearance, reading


WARNING

THIS AREA IS BEING PATROLLED BY THE
NATIONAL BALLOT
SECURITY TASK FORCE
IT IS A CRIME TO FALSIFY A BALLOT OR

TO VIOLATE ELECTION LAWS[5]
Armed officers in the task force were drawn from the ranks of off-duty county deputy sheriffs and local police, who prominently displayed revolvers, two-way radios, and BSTF armbands. BSTF patrols challenged and questioned voters at the polls.[4] Democrat James J. Florio lost the gubernatorial election to Republican Thomas H. Kean by 1,797 votes.

A civil lawsuit was filed after the election, charging the RNC with illegal harassment and voter intimidation.[6] The suit was settled in 1982, when the state and national Republican parties signed a consent decree in U.S. District Court saying that they would not allow tactics that could intimidate Democratic voters, though they did not admit any wrongdoing
Click to expand...

WARNING

THIS AREA IS BEING PATROLLED BY THE
NATIONAL BALLOT SECURITY TASK FORCE
IT IS A CRIME TO FALSIFY A BALLOT OR
TO VIOLATE ELECTION LAWS
=================================
That sign should be posted at every voting place in the country...especially where illegals might be tempted to vote.
..It IS the law, and people should
be made aware of it.....it IS IS A CRIME TO FALSIFY A BALLOT OR TO VIOLATE ELECTION LAWS
 
http://nymag.com/dai...on-results.html
Experts Urge Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results in 3 Swing States
By Gabriel Sherman




Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked. The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private.
Last Thursday, the activists held a conference call with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign general counsel Marc Elias to make their case, according to a source briefed on the call. The academics presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000. While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review — especially in light of the fact that the Obama White House has accused the Russian government of hacking the Democratic National Committee.
According to current tallies, Trump has won 290 Electoral College votes to Clinton’s 232, with Michigan’s 16 votes not apportioned because the race there is still too close to call. It would take overturning the results in both Wisconsin (10 Electoral College votes) and Pennsylvania (20 votes), in addition to winning Michigan’s 16, for Clinton to win the Electoral College. There is also the complicating factor of “faithless electors,” or members of the Electoral College who do not vote according to the popular vote in their states. At least six electoral voters have said they would not vote for Trump, despite the fact that he won their states.
The Clinton camp is running out of time to challenge the election. According to one of the activists, the deadline in Wisconsin to file for a recount is Friday; in Pennsylvania, it’s Monday; and Michigan is next Wednesday. Whether Clinton will call for a recount remains unclear. The academics so far have only a circumstantial case that would require not just a recount but a forensic audit of voting machines. Also complicating matters, a senior Clinton adviser said, is that the White House, focused on a smooth transfer of power, does not want Clinton to challenge the election result. Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri did not respond to a request for comment. But some Clinton allies are intent on pushing the issue. This afternoon, Huma Abedin’s sister Heba encouraged her Facebook followers to lobby the Justice Department to audit the 2016 vote. “Call the DOJ…and tell them you want the votes audited,” she wrote. “Even if it’s busy, keep calling.”
Update: Halderman has elaborated on his claims in a Medium post published Wednesday morning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top