Sounds incredible, doesn't it? Well, it seems that in 1981, some Republican leaders ran afoul of the "Voter Protection Act of 1965." So they signed a consent decree that said that they would not utter a peep about voter fraud ever again. Not even if they could show that it happened.
Don't just take my word for it, or that of the auithor of the linked article.
Read the
consent decree for yourselves!
Now an activist vows to challenge the election, and to do it before the Electoral College has its meetings.
Does he have a chance? Does he have a case?
LIBERTY!!!!!
Yep, blocking someone from replying to your argument is always a tell-tale sign of your inability to defend your position. It's sort of like giving someone 'the finger' from a moving car - you get to have your say and then run away like a scared child.
When you manage to grow some balls, son, come back and we'll talk.
This agreement is about limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention (prevent means to come before or precede the election), not challenging the results after the polls close.
Could voter fraud have stolen the election? Or could it have simply have been rigged?
Virginia voter fraud case expands to focus on GOP firm http://www.washingtonpost.com...
LOL
We either build a third party or we become extinct.
As for the decree they signed............they DID NOT SPEAK FOR THE PUBLIC! I was around in 1981 and I didn't approve of any such thing. Did you?
I loved your answere, sorry if you got me wrong!
Grrrr...
Just kidding!
BTW, I'm a sort of third party in my Italy (I don't like the bi-polarism that's taking place in my country).
Republicans are NOTHING but pretense.
Quit your lying and whining and face reality.
. . .You pathetic Lying Whiner.
"BACKGROUND
A. 1981 Lawsuit and Consent Decree
During the 1981 New Jersey gubernatorial election, the DNC, the New Jersey Democratic State Committee (“DSC”), Virginia L. Peggins, and Lynette Monroe brought an action against the RNC, the New Jersey Republican State Committee (“RSC”), John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado, alleging that the RNC and RSC targeted minority voters in an effort to intimidate them in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The RNC allegedly created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters and, then, including individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls. The RNC also allegedly enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting with “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner."
I mean, what do we not understand here? Why s...
"BACKGROUND
A. 1981 Lawsuit and Consent Decree
During the 1981 New Jersey gubernatorial election, the DNC, the New Jersey Democratic State Committee (“DSC”), Virginia L. Peggins, and Lynette Monroe brought an action against the RNC, the New Jersey Republican State Committee (“RSC”), John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado, alleging that the RNC and RSC targeted minority voters in an effort to intimidate them in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The RNC allegedly created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters and, then, including individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls. The RNC also allegedly enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting with “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner."
I mean, what do we not understand here? Why should the RNC be shocked or bock at the court's decision to require them to get prior approval before implementing any type of anti-voter fraud plan in the future? Come on guys...read the entire ruling and use your brain.
"[I]n the future, in all states and territories of the United States:
(a) comply with all applicable state and federal laws protecting the rights of duly qualified citizens to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice;
(b) in the event that they produce or place any signs which are part of ballot security activities, cause said signs to disclose that they are authorized or sponsored by the party committees and any other committees participating with the party committees;
(c) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their agents or employees to remove or deface any lawfully printed and placed campaign materials or signs;
(d) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their employees to campaign within restricted polling areas or to interrogate prospective voters as to their qualifications to vote prior to their entry to a polling place;
(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where ...
"[I]n the future, in all states and territories of the United States:
(a) comply with all applicable state and federal laws protecting the rights of duly qualified citizens to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice;
(b) in the event that they produce or place any signs which are part of ballot security activities, cause said signs to disclose that they are authorized or sponsored by the party committees and any other committees participating with the party committees;
(c) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their agents or employees to remove or deface any lawfully printed and placed campaign materials or signs;
(d) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their employees to campaign within restricted polling areas or to interrogate prospective voters as to their qualifications to vote prior to their entry to a polling place;
(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;
(f) refrain from having private personnel deputized as law enforcement personnel in connection with ballot security activities."
Now, conservatives, tea party members, and republicans...tell me what is so wrong with that ruling? What you did was clearly a violation of the law, and the court agreed.