Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
02-05-2013, 06:36 PM #1
- Join Date
- May 2007
- South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
Jeb Bush & Hillary Clinton Make 2016 Moves for POTUS
Breaking News From Newsmax.com
02-05-2013, 06:43 PM #2
- Join Date
- May 2007
- South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
GOP and the RNC are going to completely collapse if Jeb Bush Runs
Once again, People will stay home
I refuse and NO chance of changing it; Will NOT vote for anyone in EITHER of these 2 screwed in the head families
they act like we have a Monarchy and the Rule of the Kingdom stays in the Family
you like Jeb - take a look a Florida .. you maybe in a Recession "YOUR STATE" but Florida is and has been in a DEPRESSION from the actions of Jeb Bush
I will not vote for them as the same for many others "NO MATTER WHAT THE OUTCOME" It aint happening
as people sit home it will effect local, county, state and federal elections as well
Here we go again; The GOP & RNC just doesn't get it
02-05-2013, 11:58 PM #3
I won't support the GOP. The GOP's hands are tied on voting fraud, so it will only get worse. Why vote for a party that can't protest the election results if there has been massive fraud. We have to have a party that doesn't have its hands tied in 2014.
SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal to have the consent decree lifted 01/22/2013.
Maybe this is the reason the Democrats are screaming about "race", it stops them from being called on voter fraud.
GOP LEGALLY BARRED FROM FIGHTING VOTE FRAUD
30 years later, consent decree violation claims still threaten
Published: 11/20/2012 at 8:01 PM by BOB UNRUH
Voting machines suspiciously defaulting to Barack Obama? Buses loaded with strangers appearing at polling stations? Even ballots turning out 100 percent for one candidate in precinct reports?
In short, suspicions of vote fraud?
That’s too bad, because a race-based consent decree negotiated by Democrats against the Republican National Committee a generation ago still has tied the RNC’s hands, and GOP officials could be cited for contempt – or worse – if they try to make sure American elections are clean.
The case is the Democratic National Committee vs. the Republican National Committee, originally from 1982.
Democrats alleged Republicans were trying intimidate minority voters in New Jersey and brought the legal action. The RNC, inexplicably, decided to agree to a consent decree before a Democrat-appointed judge rather than fight the claims.
The judge, Dickinson Debevoise, appointed by Jimmy Carter, later retired but decided he would continue to control the case. The decision requires the RNC – but not the DNC – to “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.”
The rest of the agreement essentially requires the RNC to follow applicable state and federal election laws.
But the section cited above has been used for decades to warn off Republicans from any challenge to evidence of voter fraud in districts with “racial or ethnic populations.”
The law has remained, even though the RNC recently challenged it at the appellate level only to be turned down by Judges Joseph Greenaway Jr., appointed by Bill Clinton; Dolores Sloviter, appointed by Carter; and Walter Stapleton, appointed by Ronald Reagan, in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
It now is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
But two election veterans both told WND it still is hurting the fight against voter fraud in the United States.
Attorney James Bopp of the James Madison Center said the threat that the RNC has faced is that someone will allege a violation of the decree, and party officials will be standing in a courtroom on Election Day.
Bopp’s organization was founded to protect the First Amendment right of all citizens of free expression and “to support litigation and public education activities in order to defend the rights of political expression and association by citizens and citizen groups as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Bopp himself has taken part in more than 60 election-related cases, including recounts, redistricting and constitutional law challenges to state and federal election laws.
He said the agreement even today, amid reports of fraud across the country, prevents the RNC from doing any anti-voter fraud activity on Election Day.
“It is way too restrictive,” he said. “It prevents the RNC from working with state parties in conducting voter integrity activities. It has been used by the DNC to harass the leadership of the RNC with false allegations of violations of the consent decree.”
He said the reason why the RNC originally agreed to the decree, rather than fight the allegations, was unclear. But he said he investigated the issue.
“It was very troubling that the RNC’s effort to ensure the integrity of the vote would be undermined,” he told WND.
While there have been periods in U.S. history in which there have been concerns about minority voting, the restrictions today, he said, are “completely unjustified.”
“It’s become absurd,” he said, noting that the GOP has had a black chairman.
Voters, he said, would be best served to have both political parties watching for vote fraud.
Also responding to questions about the issue was Cleta Mitchell of the Washington firm of Foley & Lardner.
Mitchell is on the firm’s political law practice team and has 30 years of experience in law, politics and public policy, advising candidates, campaigns and others on state and federal campaign finance law, election law and compliance issues. She practices before the Federal Election Commission.
“The RNC has been completely prohibited from doing anything in ballot security since 1982,” she told WND. “The Democrats repeatedly over the years have gotten the RNC officers into court on the weekend before the election.
“What it means is that for 30 years there has been no way to institutionalize, to help train state parties, to work with candidates [on vote fraud prevention issues],” she said.
Problems can be caused by malfunctioning equipment, programming errors, or “sheer incompetence” of local elections officials, she said. And sometimes by vote fraud.
“The problem is there’s nothing that the RNC can do in that regard because of that consent degree,” Mitchell said. “A lot of things need to be done to improve state laws. … Democrats are able to be involved as they want to be.”
Republicans have tried to change the decree since 2009, after Obama took office. But Debevoise has ruled that they failed to show that conditions in the U.S. had changed since 1982.
Debevoise said that since most minority voters support Democrats, the RNC still has an incentive to suppress minority votes.
He dismissed the idea of voter fraud and extended his own supervision of the case until 2017.
In March, the 3rd Circuit issued its affirmation of Debevoise’s decision.
WND recently has reported on allegations of voter fraud, including a claim by a poll watcher in Pennsylvania who said votes reverted to Obama by default, no matter who the voter selected.
The incident took place in the state where officials claimed Obama received a total of 19,605 votes in 59 voting divisions to zero for Mitt Romney and not far from the 100 precincts in Ohio in which Obama got 99 percent of the vote.
With evidence mounting that the vote tabulation did not reflect the true choices of voters, talk-radio icon Rush Limbaugh declared: “Third-world, tin-horn dictators don’t get [these percentages]. I mean, the last guy that got this percentage of the vote was Saddam Hussein, and the people that didn’t vote for him got shot. This just doesn’t happen. Even Hugo Chavez [of Venezuela] doesn’t get 100 percent or 99 percent of the vote.”
It was in Upper Macungie Township, near Allentown, Pa., where an auditor, Robert Ashcroft, was dispatched by Republicans to monitor the vote on Election Day. He said the software he observed would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.”
He said that happened in about 5 percent to 10 percent of the votes.
See the BIG LIST of vote fraud reports coming out of the 2012 election.
Read more at GOP legally barred from fighting vote fraud
GOP legally barred from fighting vote fraud
02-06-2013, 12:01 AM #4
At Supreme Court, no reprieve for GOP in voting rights consent decree
US Supreme Court on Monday turned aside a petition from the Republican National Committee to lift a 30-year-old consent decree. The decree requires the RNC to refrain from tactics that could suppress voting rights.
By Warren Richey, Staff writer / January 14, 2013
The US Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up a request by the Republican National Committee to lift a 30-year-old consent decree that restricts the political party’s ability to enforce preelection ballot security programs that critics say would result in minority voter suppression.
The high court, without comment, turned aside the Republican Party’s petition.
At issue was a consent decree dating from 1982 involving allegations that Republicans had attempted to intimidate and suppress black and Hispanic voters in New Jersey in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Similar allegations arose during the recent presidential election, with Republicans emphasizing the need to counter potential voter fraud and Democrats accusing Republicans of seeking to disenfranchise minority voters. The same fundamental difference in perspective is at the center of the legal dispute over the long-time consent decree.
In that case, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) filed suit in federal court in New Jersey challenging the Republican tactics. The case never went to trial. Instead, the Republican National Committee (RNC) agreed to abide by a consent decree that required it to refrain from preelection tactics that might deter qualified voters from casting ballots.
The decree was approved by a federal judge and has remained in place ever since, with some modifications.
In November 2008, the Republican Party sought to lift the consent decree to allow party officials more flexibility in pursuing election security programs. The judge, Dickinson Debevoise, rejected the effort. That ruling was upheld by the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals.
In urging the high court to examine whether the decree is still warranted, lawyers for the Republican Party said the arrangement had become onerous for the RNC.
“The ability of the Republican Party, as one of two national political parties, to conduct effective election observation programs is of national importance,” Bobby Burchfield wrote in his petition to the high court.
He said statutes in 21 states permit political parties to engage in “poll watching activities for the purpose of detecting and reporting fraud.”
DNC lawyers argued that the high court should allow the consent decree to remain in place. Evidence presented during the 2008 and 2009 litigation over the decree showed that the order is still needed today, they said.
“That evidence includes proof that the RNC violated the Decree in 1990 and in 2004, when it created voter challenge lists that targeted minority voters; that between 1997 and 2008, Republican candidates and party organizations had engaged in separate voter suppression activities in various states, including Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin; and that the racially polarized voting that influenced the RNC in the 1980s persists today,” Angelo Genova wrote in his brief to the court.
“This substantial evidence stands in stark contrast to the RNC’s proffered ‘evidence,’ “ Mr. Genova added. He said the Republicans had made a “preposterous claim that because President Obama, Attorney General [Eric] Holder, and former RNC leaders Michael Steele and Boyd Rutherford are African-American, the RNC no longer has any incentive to suppress minority votes in violation of the terms of the Consent Decree.”
The case was Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee (12-373).
At Supreme Court, no reprieve for GOP in voting rights consent decree - CSMonitor.com