Is the republican party still cheating voters of color?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy


On December 7, 2006, the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice ordered the unprecedented[1] midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys. Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.[2][3] The U.S. attorneys were replaced with interim appointees, under provisions in the 2005 USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization.[4][5][6][7][8]
A subsequent report by the Justice Department Inspector General in October 2008 found that the process used to fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was "arbitrary", "fundamentally flawed", and "raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecution decisions".[9] In July 2010, the Department of Justice prosecutors closed the two-year investigation without filing charges after determining that the firing was inappropriately political, but not criminal, saying "Evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias. The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias."[10]
 
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-10-25/news/mn-7435_1_republican-national-committee


GOP Memo Admits Plan Could 'Keep Black Vote Down'
October 25, 1986|From the Washington Post




NEWARK, N.J. — A Republican National Committee official calculated that a so-called ballot security program in Louisiana "could keep the black vote down considerably," according to documents released in federal court Friday.
The documents and court hearing were the latest developments in a controversy over the GOP's ballot program that Democrats maintain is aimed at reducing minority turnout. The Republicans say the program's sole purpose is to purge ineligible voters from voting roles.
In an Aug. 13 memo the court made public Friday, Kris Wolfe, the Republican National Committee Midwest political director, wrote Lanny Griffith, the committee's Southern political director, and said of the Louisiana campaigning:
"I know this race is really important to you. I would guess that this program will eliminate at least 60-80,000 folks from the rolls. . . . If it's a close race . . . which I'm assuming it is, this could keep the black vote down considerably."


She said in the memorandum that the program had been approved by Gregory Graves, deputy political director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
The document, called Exhibit 13, was unsealed by U.S. District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise when lawyers for the Democratic National Committee said it was needed to question Wolfe.
Wolfe testified that she wrote about the possibility of keeping the black vote down to remind Griffith that there "might be a political situation he might want to consider. . . . I wanted him to be aware of the political considerations."
The Democrats are suing the Republican Party for $10 million, charging that the Republican National Committee ballot security programs--a method of assuring that voters reside at their listed addresses--violated a 1981 consent agreement signed by both parties.
Under the agreement, the Republican committee would "refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial composition of such districts is a factor."
Debevoise refused to issue a restraining order requiring the GOP to stop all similar activity.
Accepts Lawyers' Word
The judge said he accepted the word of Republican lawyers who told him all ballot security programs have been stopped, including an effort the Democrats say singled out predominantly black and Latino precincts in Pontiac, Mich.
In testimony Friday, Mark Braden, the Republican National Committee's chief counsel and the organizer of the ballot security program, said he repeatedly sought to make it clear to subordinates that "race was a factor that could not be used. I would instill the fear of God in them. . . . I'm not an idiot, this is a big press issue, and it's a big legal issue."
The committee's ballot security program was conducted in Louisiana, Indiana and Missouri. Before it became controversial, GOP political strategists said they planned to use it in other states.
'Insidious Scheme'
Louisiana state District Court Judge Richard E. Lee issued an injunction against the program on Oct. 14. In his order, Lee said: "This was an insidious scheme by the Republican Party to remove blacks from the voting roles."
 
https://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/dnc-v-rnc-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.
 
evince said:
https://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/dnc-v-rnc-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 to expand...

Why don't you admit the truth that most blacks can't do things that whites have no problem doing when it comes to voting instead of enabling those blacks to blame white people for what is caused by their own unwillingness to do their part? If not getting off your lazy ass to do something is considered cheating, the only ones that cheated those blacks are the ones that produced them. In most cases, since so many are bastards, it goes back to the concept of "mama's baby, papa maybe".
 
Louisiana state District Court Judge Richard E. Lee issued an injunction against the program on Oct. 14. In his order, Lee said: "This was an insidious scheme by the Republican Party to remove blacks from the voting roles."
 
more means they were given SOME already huh


what about that case where the republicans phone jammed a ride to the polls effort?


was that real idiot
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_New_Hampshire_Senate_election_phone_jamming_scandal



"Phonegate" redirects here. For other scandals with that name, see List of scandals with "-gate" suffix.
Elections in New Hampshire


The 2002 New Hampshire Senate election phone jamming scandal involved the use of a telemarketing firm hired by that state's Republican Party (NHGOP) for election tampering. The tampering involved using a call center to jam the phone lines of a get out the vote (GOTV) operation. In the end, 900 calls were made for 45*minutes of disruption to the Democratic-leaning call centers.
During that state's 2002 election for the United States Senate seat being vacated by Republican Bob Smith, the NHGOP hired GOP Marketplace, based in northern Virginia, to jam another phone bank being used by the state Democratic Party and the firefighters' union for efforts to turn out voters on behalf of then-Governor of New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen on Election Day. John E. Sununu, the Republican nominee, won a narrow victory. In addition to criminal prosecutions, disclosures in the case have come from a civil suit filed by the state's Democratic Party against the state's Republican Party (now settled).
Four men have been convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, federal crimes and sentenced to prison for their involvement as of 2008. One conviction has been reversed by an appeals court, a decision prosecutors are appealing. James Tobin, freed on appeal, was later indicted on charges of lying to the FBI during the original investigation
 
We have the Russians. We have nothing to worry about.

We are already working on our Twitter and Facebook posts that will eliminate the democrat party from Congress completely. There is nothing you can do about it
 
how about why the republican party can NEVER seem to get out of that consent decree after decades?


because they keep breaking the consent agreement and slashing voters from the roles without consenting the courts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top