THE DEMOCRATS HAVE THE UPPER HAND ON VOTER FRAUD EVERY STATE THAT HAS PASSED LEGISLATION TO REQUIRE VOTER ID THE DOJ HAS SUED THE STATE COSTING THE STATES HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO CONTEST THE LAWSUITS. be###
November 13, 2012 on True the Vote Web Cast Reince Priebus,
the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), was asked what the GOP
would do about voter integrity. His answer, Nothing. They aren’t
legally able to.
Back in the stone age there was a lawsuit 31 years ago, in 1981.
The following is from an account on The Judicial View, a legal website specializing in court
decision research and alerts. To Read the lawsuit click on “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615.
In 1981, during the gubernatorial election in New Jersey (NJ), a
lawsuit was brought against the RNC, the NJ Republican State Committee (RSC),
and three individuals (John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado),
accusing them of violating 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 lawsuit was brought by the Democratic National Committee
(DNC), the NJ Democratic State Committee (DSC), and two individuals (Virginia
L. Peggins and Lynette Monroe).
The lawsuit alleged that:
§ The RNC and RSC targeted minority voters in
New Jersey in an effort to intimidate them.
§ The RNC created a voter challenge list by
mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of
racial or ethnic minority registered voters. Then the RNC put the names of
individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters
to challenge at the polls.
§ The RNC enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs
and police officers with “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands, to
intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during
voting. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.
To settle the lawsuit, in 1982, the RNC and RSC entered into an
agreement or Consent Decree, which is national in scope, limiting the
RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC
obtains the court’s approval in advance. The following is what the RNC and RSC, in the Consent
Decree, agreed they would do:
[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 towarddistricts 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.
The RNC also agreed that the RNC, its agents, servants, and
employees would be bound by the Decree, “whether acting directly or indirectly
through other party committees.” As modified in 1987, the Consent Decree defined “ballot security activities”to mean “ballot
integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote
fraud.”
Since 1982, that Consent Decree has been renewed every year by
the original judge, Carter appointee District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, now 88 years old. Long retired, Debevoise comes back yearly for the sole purpose of renewing
his 1982 order for another year.
U.S. District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise
In 2010, the RNC unsuccessfully appealed “to vacate or modify” the
Consent Decree in “Democratic
National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615 (C.A. 3,
Mar. 8, 2012 Case No. 09-4615 and uploaded the 59-page document This is a summary of the appeals
judge’s ruling, filed on March 8,
2012:
In 1982, the Republican National Committee (“RNC”) and the
Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) entered into a consent decree (the
“Decree” or “Consent Decree”), which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s
ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the
court’s approval in advance. The RNC appeals from a judgment of the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying, in part, the
RNC’s Motion to Vacate or Modify the Consent Decree. Although the District Court declined to vacate the Decree, it did make modifications to the Decree. The
RNC argues that the District Court abused its discretion by modifying the
Decree as it did and by declining to vacate the Decree. For the following
reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
Surprise! The judge who denied the RNC’s appeal to “vacate” the
1982 Consent Decree is an Obama appointee, Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.Judge
Joseph Greenaway, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit. Research Source
