Gee, that is swell. Yet where were they two days ago?
Too late, too little.
SoreLoserC’MonMan!
Oh, just in time for the 2022 election.
Oh, groovy! Let me make a donation... NEVER!
So some assclown judge gave the assclown Democrats 4 decades of stealing elections without the RNC trying to stop them?
No wonder that assclown Biden is so intent on stealing the election! It is their last freebie.
How on earth did they get under a consent decree like that? It seems unconstitutional on its face.
Great find. I’m so glad that the RNC really jumped on this and got seriously ready for the November 3, 2020 election. NINETEEN MONTHS of prep work really paid off.
A$$Holes. It’s almost like the RNC WANTS Biden to win.
Wow, a major new working group, imagine that. Clearly they got everything figured out and fixed in that year and a half.
RNC Advised Against "Ballot Security" Efforts By Members With State Party RolesI've never even heard of this consent decree before. Obama used consent decrees liberally and extensively to look into local police departments, but this is the first that I've heard of the RNC being under one. That BASTARD made it illegal for the RNC to fight voter fraud. Unbelievable."Given the seriousness of the Consent Degree ... you are encouraged not to engage in 'ballot security' activities even in your personal, state party, or campaign capacity." The Michigan and Pennsylvania party chairs — who are both RNC members — went ahead with such activities anyway.
On Oct. 19, 2016, the Republican National Committee's general counsel sent an email warning RNC members that the national party was barred from engaging in "ballot security" measures.
Specifically, RNC general counsel John Ryder wrote that a longstanding court-enforced agreement meant that the RNC or those acting on its behalf could not engage in measures aimed at stopping voter fraud at the polls.
He went further, however, writing, "Given the seriousness of the Consent Degree and the severe consequences of a violation, you are encouraged not to engage in 'ballot security' activities even in your personal, state party, or campaign capacity."
Two of those RNC members are now part of an argument by Democrats that the RNC has violated that agreement — which, if a federal courts agrees, would mean the agreement would be extended for another eight years.
The Democratic National Committee went to court, arguing that, among other issues, two RNC members — one in Michigan and another in Pennsylvania — had taken specific actions violating the longstanding consent decree.
On Wednesday, the RNC's lawyers made the opposite argument of Ryder's October advice — telling a federal judge that the RNC members from Michigan and Pennsylvania could not have their actions "attributed to the RNC" because they were acting solely in their capacity as state party chairs when discussing efforts to address voter fraud at the polls.
"[Pennsylvania Republican Party Chair Robert] Gleason was quoted in the news article in his capacity as State Party Chair, not in his capacity as an RNC member. ... [Michigan Republican Party Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel] was quoted in her capacity as Chairwoman of the Republican Party of Michigan, not in her capacity as an RNC member," the RNC's lawyers write. "When an individual is acting solely in his or her capacity as a state party chair that conduct cannot and should not be attributed to the RNC."
The GD DNC gets to conduct fraud right out in the open and there's no consent decree against them. What a lopsided situation. All of the DNC perps across the land at every level should be tried, convicted and given long terms breaking boulders into gravel.
“A federal court consent decree, ended last year, had prohibited the RNC from engaging in ballot security activities for nearly 40 years.”
__________________________
What??? So they let that decree stand....40 years? Come on. They will continue to do nothing. It ended last year! Nothing done. Everybody knew fraud was headed to this election.
Nothing.
What? 40 years? And the DNC could be on the ground where the RNC could not be?
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.
Bet they didn’t see the pandemic hoax and cheat-by-mail coming.
>> 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.