Posted on 11/05/2020 3:50:06 PM PST by redgolum
The Republican National Committee (RNC) has unanimously approved a major new working group to focus on ballot security measures and support for candidates facing election challenges, following accusations of voting irregularities in key races in Florida, North Carolina, California, and elsewhere. A federal court consent decree, ended last year, had prohibited the RNC from engaging in ballot security activities for nearly 40 years. The aggressive new step, Fox News is told, is meant to level the playing field with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as close elections increasingly become litigious and, in turn, bring discord, division and fiery talking points. In Georgia, for example, defeated Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams has claimed democracy "failed" in that contest, though she lost by more than 50,000 votes and had previously criticized President Trump for suggesting he would not accept an unfavorable election outcome. And as Senate and gubernatorial races in Florida headed to a prolonged, flawed and confusing recount process last year, Republicans warned that a swarm of Democratic lawyers were descending on the state in a deliberate effort to "steal the election." In Texas, there were allegations on noncitizen voting. In California, where Republicans suffered major defeats in the fall, Democrats changed the law to permit "ballot harvesting" -- letting campaign operatives take residents' ballots to the polls on their behalf. And in North Carolina, a new election is scheduled in a race that was initially won by a Republican, but that an investigation found to be marked by fraud.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
What? 40 years? And the DNC could be on the ground where the RNC could not be?
I’m speaking about the original assclown, not the judge that got them out of it.
Fox did not accurately state the consent degree.
Decades-Old Consent Decree Lifted Against RNC's 'Ballot Security' MeasuresSo this whole thing was all about the tired old trope that Republicans are trying to suppress minority turnout (and that was probably entirely about wanting to purge voter rolls and require Voter ID). The supreme irony in 2020 is that minorities voted RNC at higher rates than in the past SIXTY YEARS!
NPR, January 9, 2018Transcript
A decades old consent decree has been lifted against the Republican National Committee's so-called "ballot security" measures. It's a big victory in the RNC's efforts to monitor polling activity and it's a sobering moment for activists who fear this could accelerate voter suppression — especially among minorities.
ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Eleven months before Election Day, a federal judge has given the Republican National Committee a big win. He has allowed a consent decree to expire that was in place since 1982. That agreement prevented the RNC from carrying out what the party saw as ballot security measures and what critics deemed voter suppression. Rick Hasen of the University of California, Irvine, joins us now. He writes the Election Law Blog. Welcome.
RICK HASEN: Good to be with you.
SHAPIRO: What happened in the early 1980s that led to this consent decree?
HASEN: Well, the Democrats accused the Republican National Committee of engaging in a number of activities which they said was voter suppression in violation of the Voting Rights Act and other civil rights laws. One thing the RNC was accused of was sending armed police officers off duty to polling places to patrol the polling places in minority areas.
Rather than going to trial, the RNC agreed to settle the case, and it settled the case in what's called a consent decree, which means that the settlement between the parties was embodied in a court order. And if the RNC ever violated that order, they could be found in contempt. And so this was a very powerful too that the Democrats have been able to use for the last few decades.
SHAPIRO: And over the years, the Democrats convinced judges to extend this consent decree until now. Why not?
HASEN: Well, so back in the mid-2000s, the RNC went all the way to the Supreme Court trying to get the consent decree eliminated because nobody wants to be under the threat of contempt. But in 2009, a federal judge said, all right, I'm giving it eight more years. Unless the Democrats come forward with evidence that the Republicans are still engaging in this activity, the consent decree will end as of December 1, 2017.
So this summer, as the Trump campaign started touting problems with voter fraud and trying to collect signatures of people who were going to engage in poll watching on Election Day, Democrats said the Republicans were violating the consent decree. The judge determined that whatever the Trump campaign might have done, it was done without the RNC's cooperation, and therefore the RNC didn't violate it, and the consent decree was allowed to die.
SHAPIRO: So what do you expect will change in November when people go to the polls and, for the first time, the RNC is not under this consent decree?
HASEN: If we were not in the Trump administration, I wouldn't expect very much to change. The RNC has been very careful to instruct people associated with it not to engage in any activities that might be seen as suppressing the vote. But Trump adds something different here. He has made voter fraud a centerpiece of his rhetoric about campaigns. He's claimed falsely that 3 to 5 million people voted illegally in the last election, and he's organized people to try to be on the lookout for voter fraud at polling places.
If he tries to use the RNC in this activity, there's now nothing under this consent decree that would stop him. And so I do think to the extent that Trump controls the RNC, we may see more activities aimed at so-called ballot security, which could be seen as suppressing the votes of minority voters. [POF--Yeah, we MAY see more activities...or we MAY NOT]
SHAPIRO: Wouldn't that immediately end up in court and presumably another consent decree?
HASEN: Well, it could end up in court. I certainly wouldn't expect the RNC these days to agree to a consent decree. It might lead to litigation. But you know, this kind of litigation can take years, and the benefit of the consent decree was that the RNC was always under the watch of the DNC and had the ability to bring up a claim of contempt. They don't have that anymore, and so it's a much harder road if it comes to new litigation.
SHAPIRO: Could you argue as the RNC did in a statement today that this just puts the two parties on equal footing?
HASEN: Well, it does put them on equal footing in that neither one is subject to a consent decree. But the difference is that the RNC has a record of having engaged in activities which have been - appear to be aimed at making it harder for minority voters likely to vote for Democrats to be able to vote. And that same danger has not at least in recent years been coming from the Democratic Party. So they might be equal in terms of their legal status, but the dangers are somewhat different for voters.
Due to voter suppression activities
“I’m speaking about the original assclown, not the judge that got them out of it.”
Obviously you are making assumptions based on not reading the links I gave you.
Bet they didn’t see the pandemic hoax and cheat-by-mail coming.
This was not fought by the GOPe because the Uniparty fox was in. If the GOPe wanted to get out of the consent decree they could have changed the law when they had both the House, Senate, and the Presidency. Hell, the GOP could have changed the law when Clinton was President because they had such numbers in the House and Senate. They could have easily done it under Bush, and the 1st 2 years of the. Trump Administration when they controlled all three branches of government. The GOPe is the ‘controlled opposition’ and nothing more.
>> And as Senate and gubernatorial races in Florida headed to a prolonged, flawed and confusing recount process last year,
And Floriduh missed out on Governor Meth-head Butseks
You mean that almost three generations had to live under extreme election fraud? Why would the RNC agree to this and why was another political party not established for conservatives?
The consent decree was thought to be short term by the Republicans, but the very partisan judge just kept renewing it. It wasn’t until that judge died that the Republicans got out of it.
Couldn’t 4 years ago. The consent decree was still in force. Has been in force for 40 years.
Chew on the mistake!
Not 19 months of prep work...
40 years
I’ve known about this for a long time. Pubs wouldnt contest any close and then stolen election. I am sure they have cheated also. Think rinos.
And the RNC would agree with it because they are in on it. The Swamp, One World Order, Agenda 21, Global Warming scam etc etc etc......There has been only one party in DC for a very long time. I have lived it up close and personal. The electorate doesnt matter. Got to give them credit, they play the long game very well.
Is that speculation or knowledge on your part?
In my recollection, the RNC sent out a mailer that was targeted only to blacks that was deemed “unfair” in some form, and, rather than fight back, the RNC entered into some unholy agreement where they would stand down for a long time. The judge who over saw that agreement was a Jimmy Carter judge who recently died and he can’t continue it any longer, which was on him to continue or not.
He believed the Republicans never showed they were “nice enough” to cancel the agreement.
Actually, it was a Jimmy Carter judge who oversaw it, and the dang guy kept it up until he recently died, in my recollection.
It is just a reasonable deduction based on the balance of power between the judiciary and Congress and the Executive. If you control two branches of government you can overrule any judge. The fact that the GOPe did not bother to legislate away the consent decree when they controlled the House, Senate, and the Presidency is strong proof that they were fine with losing to Democrat Party vote fraud. Do not listen to what they saw, watch what they do.
Yep. I got the 19 months from the date of the article, April 10,2019. But it clearly points out the 40 years. Un-effing-believable. The RATS get FORTY YEARS to perfect their vote fraud and we don’t fight it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.