decades of court documets and decisions prove the republican party cheats

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...

UnAmerican republican party
 
denying facts


your party cheats in elections


you have had that proven to you


yet you praise Putin and lie to protect a trashing of the very foundation of this nation



how much does putin pay you
 
Lawn mowed fucking racists cant live in office racists on the right here are all flat out in your party and haunted the destruction of what it will be
 
evince said:
denying facts


your party cheats in elections


you have had that proven to you


yet you praise Putin and lie to protect a trashing of the very foundation of this nation



how much does putin pay you
Click to expand...

Detroit and all the illegal voters in California
 
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...

beyond a showdown of a doubt
 
http://www.nytimes.c...k-vote-cut.html
G.O.P. MEMO TELLS OF BLACK VOTE CUT
By MARTIN TOLCHIN, Special to the New York Times
Published: October 25, 1986


WASHINGTON, Oct. 24— A Federal judge today released a memorandum in which a Republican official said the party's program to pare the voting rolls in the name of ''ballot integrity'' ''could keep the black vote down considerably'' in a Louisiana Senate primary.
The memorandum, prepared by Kris Wolfe, a Middle Western regional director for the Republican National Committee, was sent to Lanny Griffith, the committee's regional director for the South. It was obtained by the Democratic National Committee in a $10 million lawsuit against the Republican committee over the ''ballot integrity'' program.
Republicans contended that the purpose of the program was to prevent voter fraud, and not to lower the number of black voters. They say the reference to a reduction in the black vote referred only to a possible effect of the program in the Louisiana election and not to its goal. Democrats, however, have charged that the purpose was to ''harass, intimidate and improperly challenge'' black voters.
The program involved sending letters this year to registered voters in areas that voted 75 percent or more for Walter F. Mondale for President in 1984. If a letter was returned as undeliverable, the Republicans said, they might challenge the addressee's right to cast a ballot. The program was conducted in Louisiana, Indiana and Missouri. Effect on Black Vote
Ms. Wolfe's memorandum concerned the ''ballot integrity'' project in Louisiana, in a Senate primary race pitting Representative W. Henson Moore, a Republican, against Representative John B. Breaux, a Democrat. The memo was unsealed by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise in Newark Federal District Court.
''I would guess that this program will eliminate at least 60-80,000 folks from the rolls,'' Ms. Wolfe wrote. ''If it's a close race, which I'm assuming it is, this could keep the black vote down considerably.''
Mr. Moore has denied that his campaign was involved in the program. But in the memo, Ms. Wolfe mentioned a conversation with a campaign worker for Mr. Moore.
''I have talked to Mary Anne at the Moore headquarters and she Fed Expressed the tapes of the parish on floppy disks'' and on paper to campaign officials, the memo said. In Louisiana a parish corresponds to a county.
Judge Debevoise had sealed all documents in the case, but David Boies, a lawyer for the Democrats, told the judge today that he wanted the document unsealed so that he could refer to it in questioning Ms Wolfe on the witness stand.
Ms. Wolfe testified that the sentences about black voters were a reminder that the program created ''a political situation that somebody in Louisiana might bring up.'' Parties Offer 2 Viewpoints
Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., chairman of the Republican National Committee, said in a statement today that Ms. Wolfe's testimony ''shows there has never been, nor is there now, any program at the Republican National Committee designed to intimidate or discourage any voter from exercising his or her right to vote.''
''We have said all along that the purpose of the program was to help election officials make certain that no dead or fictitious persons vote,'' he said.
But Paul G. Kirk Jr., the Democratic national chairman, said: ''The Republican voter intimidation program has been exposed in all its ugly hypocrisy. The internal memorandum the R.N.C. has been attempting to hide reveals that their so-called 'ballot integrity' project was nothing more than a cynical attempt to disenfranchise blacks and other minority voters.''
Bill Greener, deputy chief of staff of the Republican National Committee, referring to the hearing today, said: ''It was made abundantly clear under oath that not a single thing done had the intent or the effect of intimidating a single voter. It was clearly explained that what was meant in that memo was that the black vote tally could be reduced when dead and nonexistent were removed.''
''The Democrats are seeking short-term political gain through misrepresentation of the facts,'' he added.
Mark Braden, counsel to the Republican National Committee, said on the witness stand today that the purpose of the Republican plan in Louisiana was ''to keep 'vacant lots' from voting.'' Program Began in 1960's
He testified that the overall voter integrity program was started in the 1960's. In discussions with regional Republican officials, Mr. Braden said, ''I wanted to be explicitly clear'' that black voters were not the target of the program.
The Republican National Committee agreed Monday to abandon further efforts to carry out the ''ballot integrity'' program, and persuaded the judge to seal the documents in the case.
The Democrats later learned, however, that the Republicans intended to continue the program in Michigan's Sixth Congressional District, which pits Representative Bob Carr, a Democrat, against Jim Dunn, a Republican from whom Mr. Carr won the seat in 1982.
Democrats turned down a Republican offer to stipulate that the party would not use the program in the Carr-Dunn race. Instead, the Democrats sought a court order. But Judge Debevoise accepted the stipulation.









*
Make note that the republican party was ALREADY under the consent decree by the courts BEFORE they did this
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
http://www.brennance...-consent-decree
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
DNC v. RNC Consent Decree
November 5, 2016

*
In 1982, after caging in predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods, the Republican National Committee and New Jersey Republican State Committee entered into a consent decree with their Democratic party counterparts. Under that decree and its 1987 successor, the Republican party organizations agreed to allow a federal court to review proposed “ballot security” programs, including any proposed voter caging.
The consent decree has been invoked several times, by the parties to the decree and by others. In late 2008, the Democratic National Committee and Obama for America sought to enforce the consent decree, claiming that the RNC had not submitted alleged ballot security operations for review. After the election, the RNC asked the federal court to vacate or substantially modify the decree. The court denied the RNC's motion to vacate the consent decree and ordered the decree remain in effect until December 2017. The RNC then appealed to the Third Circuit, which unanimously rejected the appeal and affirmed the District Court's decision. *A subsequent petition for rehearing en banc by the full Third Circuit, and a certiorari petition to U.S. Supreme Court, were denied.
On October 26, 2016, the DNC filed a motion asking that the court find the RNC had violated the decree.*On November 5, after abbreviated discovery, the district court denied the DNC’s request, ruling that the DNC had not provided sufficient evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and the RNC on ballot-security operations, but will allow the DNC to offer further evidence after the election.
Click here to learn more about voter caging.
Click here to learn more about ballot security programs.
Related Court Documents
2016
Order Denying Request to Extend Decree*(11/05/2016)
RNC's Memorandum in Opposition to Order to Show Cause*(10/31/2016)
DNC's Memorandum in Support of Order to Show Cause*(10/26/2016)
2012
Petition for Rehearing (03/22/2012)
Third Circuit Opinion (03/08/2012)
2009
Debevoise Order*(12/01/2009)
Debevoise Opinion*(12/01/2009)
RNC Post-Hearing Brief*(06/26/2009)
DNC Post-Hearing Brief (06/26/2009)
RNC Reply Brief*(02/19/2009)
DNC Brief Opposing Motion to Vacate*(01/19/2009)
RNC Brief in Support of Motion*(11/03/2008)
2008 (several states)
DNC Brief (11/03/2008)
DNC Brief Atty. Certification of Exhibits (11/03/2008)
OFA Intervention Memo (11/03/2008)
Minute Entry (11/03/2008)
2004 (Ohio)
Malone Dismissal*(02/03/2005)
Malone en banc Decision*(11/09/2004)
Malone Appellate Decision*(11/01/2004)
Malone Order*(11/01/2004)
Malone Intervenor PI brief*(11/01/2004)
Malone Intervenor Complaint*(10/31/2004)
Malone Memo in Support of Intervention*(10/28/2004)
Malone Motion to Intervene*(10/28/2004)
2004 (South Dakota)
Daschle Temporary Restraining Order*(11/02/2004)
Daschle SD Complaint*(11/01/2004)
2002 (New Jersey)
Order (10/31/2002)
1990 (North Carolina)
Order (11/05/1990)
1987 (several states)
Consent Decree (07/27/1987)
Original 1981 case (New Jersey)
Consent Decree*(11/01/1982)
Complaint*(02/11/1982)
*
 
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...



the begining of a long list
 
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...



republican scum bags
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top