Tag Archives: 1982 Consent Decree

End of 1982 Consent Decree: GOP finally can contest vote fraud after 36 years

This is a re-publish of my post of August 7, 2018, on the WordPress-hosted Fellowship of the Minds (FOTM), which WordPress obliterated by arbitrarily and without warning shutting down FOTM — the digital equivalent of burning an entire library.

Just in time for this November’s mid-term elections!

Did you know that since 1982, the Republican Party had been legally prohibited from contesting elections due to suspected vote fraud, because of a legal agreement called the Consent Decree the GOP made with the Democrat Party?

Finally, 36 years later, a judge has ended the agreement, freeing the Republican Party to ensure electoral integrity by investigating and pursuing suspected vote fraud.

Betcha you never heard or seen this truly momentous news in the Left-infested mainstream media. Why’s that?

The 1982 Consent Decree

As I explained in my post of November 15, 2012, “Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud,” in 1981, during the gubernatorial election in New Jersey (NJ), a lawsuit was brought against the Republican National Committee (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 — while Ronald Reagan was President (1981-1989) — 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 two parties agreed that “in the future, in all states and territories of the United States,” they would:

(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.

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.”

To put it bluntly, the Consent Decree in effect gave a carte blanche to the Democrat Party to commit vote fraud in every voting district across America that has, in the language of the Consent Decree, “a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations.” The term “substantial proportion” is not defined.

In 1987, the Consent Decree was modified to define “ballot security activities” as “ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud.”

Since 1982, the Consent Decree had been renewed every year by the original judge, Carter appointee District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, who, even after he retired, returned every year for the sole purpose of renewing his 1982 order for another year. Debevoise died in August 2015.

U.S. District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise

In 2010, the RNC 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). But an appeals judge at the New Jersey District Court, Obama appointee Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., declined to vacate the decree.

Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit

Flash forward to December 1, 2017, when the Consent Decree was due to expire.

According to NJ.com, the Democrat Party tried to extend the Consent Decree, claiming that the 2016 Trump presidential campaign had colluded with the RNC in voter intimidation efforts, and that Trump’s commission to examine suspected Democratic voter fraud was, in the words of Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), “a thinly veiled voter suppression effort”.

But Sean Spicer, who had been a top RNC official before entering the Trump White House as spokesman, testified there was no collusion of the Trump campaign with the RNC, and that the RNC had stayed away from all 2016 election day activities, including any voter-intimidation, voter-suppression or ballot-security efforts. Nor did any party officials discuss voter fraud allegations with the Trump campaign. Spicer said:

“It had been abundantly clear for the six years that I worked at the RNC that the RNC and its employees were prohibited from engaging in Election Day activities, including poll watching, so I intentionally stayed away from all of that.

The [RNC] counsel’s office had been vigilant in informing both senior staff and subordinates on the importance of the consent decree and the activities that we were clearly should not be engaged at or be even perceived as engaging in. And so we had grown accustomed to not even coming too close to a line that would in any way, shape, or form lead one to believe that we were engaged in those activities.”

RNC lawyer Bobby Burchfield said Spicer’s testimony proved there was no collusion and asked the presiding judge, U.S. District Court Judge John Michael Vazquez, to allow the 1982 Consent Decree to expire.

As reported by NJ.com on January 9, 2018, Judge Vazquez ruled that the Democratic National Committee did not prove that the RNC violated the Consent Decree prior to its Dec. 1, 2017, expiration date.

And with that, Judge Vazquez, an Obama appointee, ended that noxious 1982 Consent Decree legal agreement between the RNC and DNC which had tied the Republican Party’s hands from contesting elections and investigating vote fraud for 36 years.

RNC spokesman Michael Ahrens said “We are gratified that the judge recognized our full compliance with the consent decree and rejected the DNC’s baseless claims” and that Judge Vazquez’s ruling “will allow the RNC to work more closely with state parties and campaigns to do what we do best, ensure that more people vote through our unmatched field program.” As a result, the GOP will be able to boost its Election Day turnout operations, including targeting potential voters and get them to the polls, which the Democrats have been able to do but the Republicans have not for 36 years.

Nominated by Obama to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in March 2015, John Michael Vazquez, 47-48, who received his J.D. from Seton Hall University School of Law, was confirmed by the Senate on January 27, 2016, by a vote of 84 to 2.

Thank you, Judge Vazquez, for your fair and judicious ruling.

H/t RevLennel of Reddit

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

A revolution in politics is coming

Technology drives social and political change.
Just as newspapers and magazines are going out of business because of the Internet, and brick-and-mortar store sales increasingly are eclipsed by online shops, the day will soon come when how Americans do politics will also be up-ended.
That’s what long-time journalist Ron Fournier predicts in “The Era of Political Disruption,” in National Journal, Oct. 21, 2014. Below is his article:
From time to time in this column, I predict that the United States is entering an era of great political disruption, a bottom-up revolution on the scale of what upended the music, television, movie, media, and retail industries. Fueled by the radical connectivity of the Internet, abrupt new actors in those fields dismantled the status quo, shifted power downward, and created an explosion of options for consumers.
Consider what just one change wrought. You can now choose any musician’s song from any album, download it instantly and from virtually anywhere on earth for less than the price of a candy bar, and store it on a device with thousands of other tracks from just as many different singers. That’s power.
I ask you, how long until Americans recognized they’re no less equipped to disrupt politics and government? How soon before we stop settling for an inferior product in Washington and at statehouses? When do we demand more and better from the Democratic and Republican parties—or create new political organizations that usurp the old?
I don’t know the answers. I do believe it’s a matter of when, not if. Because, while we may be a presidential cycle or two away from the Great Disruption, you can already spot green shoots of populism emerging from an otherwise bleak midterm landscape.
Unsatisfied consumers: Disruption thrives when the status quo is not serving the needs of a changing public. Netflix, Amazon, and Buzzfeed wouldn’t exist if people had been satisfied with the way the entertainment, retail, and media industries were operating. The same American public that forced change on those industries is equally, if not more, annoyed with the political system.
A majority of Americans hold a negative view of the GOP, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal survey. The Democratic Party’s image is underwater, meaning that more people disapprove than approve of the party. The percentage of Americans identifying themselves as independents is rising steadily, from 31 percent in 2004 to 44 percent in September, according to a Gallup study cited by Democratic consultant Doug Sosnik.
“Americans’ long-brewing discontent shows clear signs of reaching a boiling point,” Sosnik wrote a year ago. “And when it happens, the country will judge its politicians through a new filter—one that asks, ‘Which side of the barricade are you on?’ ”
While many independents will vote Democratic or Republican, they’re doing so out of a lack of choice. Last year, NBC/Esquire commissioned a nonpartisan analysis of the electorate and determined that a full majority, 51 percent, make up a “New American Center,” voters whose attitudes and ideologies leave them without a natural home inside either the GOP or the Democratic Party. These voters share common values that run counter to the polarized, zero-sum ways of the two major parties.
Exacerbating this disconnect between the parties and the people is the public’s sour mood. Huge majorities of Americans say the country is on the wrong track. They see a grim future for themselves, their children, and their country. They believe their political leaders are selfish, greedy, and short-sighted—unable and/or unwilling to shield most people from wrenching economic and social change.
Ambitious disruptors: A handful of politicians are looking over the horizon and offering themselves as an alternative to the GOP and the Democratic Party. Independent candidate Greg Orman threatens to unseat GOP Sen. Pat Roberts in heavily Republican Kansas. Republican-turned-independent Larry Pressler has put the South Dakota race into play. A libertarian pizza delivery man may gobble up enough voters to determine the Senate race in North Carolina. In Alaska, Democrats are backing an independent Republican for governor.
In governor’s races, nearly a dozen incumbents are in various levels of danger; their challengers seizing the mantle of change.
Still, this year’s elections won’t result in a wave of newly elected independents, nor will a record number of incumbents lose their jobs. The Old Guard will conclude that the status quo is safe. But the Old Guard is a ship of fools, living on borrowed time. They remind me of smug newspaper publishers, music moguls, and bookstore-chain operators who were abruptly disrupted out of business.
“Look beneath the surface, and you’ll see this is more of an anti-incumbent, anti-establishment year than people realize,” said Joe Trippi, who helped bring modern technology to the political system while running a 2004 Democratic presidential campaign for Howard Dean. “Change is coming. Big change.”
Young disruptors: The ranks of the congressional candidates include a dozen or so millennials, people who came of age after 9/11. They include Elise Stefanik, 30, a Republican who helped me research a 2006 book about leadership when she was a Harvard undergraduate. Nick Troiano, 25, is running as an independent in Pennsylvania. “If I win, it will send a signal to Washington that you’d better watch out, that there’s a huge generation of millennials poised to disrupt politics as usual,” Troiano told me in April.
Even if the Old Guard defeats Stefanik, Troiano, and every other young candidate in November, they can’t stop the changes millennials would make to the system. This generation of Americans is relatively civic-minded, pragmatic, tolerant, diverse, and less interested in ideology than results. The only thing that can stop millennials from disrupting the system is the generation itself; young Americans are deeply disillusioned with politics and government, and their inclination to solve problems outside of traditional institutions could create a severe brain drain in Washington.
Conventional wisdom argues against even the remote possibility of an independent presidential bid; against the dismantling of old party structures and the creation of new ones; and against any structural reform to government. I get it. There are thousands of reasons why you might place your bets on the status quo.
I’ll put my money on the people. Trippi is right. Change is coming.
~End of Fournier article
the-powers-that-be-copy
The question, of course, is how this political revolution will come about. We haven’t yet figured out the way.
I propose that we begin by each of us going independent, i.e., registering as Independents unaffiliated with either of the two main parties. I did that 10 years ago.
For conservatives, the Democrats are demon rats. Voting for any Democrat is completely out of the question.
But if you think the Republican Party is the answer, think again. Please acquaint yourself with a curious legal agreement that the GOP entered into with the Dems — the 1982 Consent Decree — in which the Republican Party agreed to neither contest nor combat voter fraud. See my post, Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud.”
See also “America’s Bipartisan Ruling Class vs. the People.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Obama 2012 campaign conspired to register 11,000 in NC against state law

fraud
Only those who have eyes but refuse to see, and ears but refuse to hear, ignore the massive vote fraud that was perpetrated across America in the pivotal 2012 election.
As examples, there were:

  • 59 voting divisions in the city of Philadelphia where Mitt Romney did not receive a single vote.
  • Reports of voting machines repeatedly switching votes from Romney to Obama.
  • Counties with voter registration rates of more than 100%.
  • Reports of people unable to vote because records allegedly (and erroneously) showed they had already voted.
  • Reports of Obama voters being bussed in from outside the state.
  • An Obama campaign worker recorded on tape helping someone to register to vote in more than one state.
  • Tens of thousands of military overseas ballots being lost or delivered late.

For more, see “22 signs of Democrat Voter Fraud in 2012 Election,”
Despite all these reports and signs of vote fraud, neither the Romney campaign nor the Republican National Committee (RNC) did anything to expose the fraud or challenge the alleged election results.
If you’re wondering why and don’t know about a strange legal agreement signed by the RNC 30 years ago, the 1982 Consent Decree, in which the RNC agreed not to prevent or challenge vote fraud, see my post of Nov. 15, 2012, “Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud”.
And so it’s up to the American people and citizens groups to do the job of the useless Republican Party.
One such group is the Civitas Institute, a conservative organization in North Carolina dedicated to “The vision … of a North Carolina whose citizens enjoy liberty and prosperity derived from limited government, personal responsibility and civic engagement.”
James Simpson reports for Examiner.com, Feb. 20, 2013, that North Carolina does not allow online voting. But the Civitas Institute discovered that the North Carolina State Board of Elections (SBE) and the Obama 2012 Campaign conspired to register at least 11,000 people via the Internet in violation of state law. SBE staff authorized an Obama campaign website, Gottaregister.com, to use a web-based registration program.
Civitas has confirmed this through records requests filed with all of North Carolina’s 100 counties. The counting is not yet complete.
Currently California, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Nevada, Maryland, and New York allow some form of online voter registration. North Carolina and many other states do not. For obvious reasons, this method is fraught with vulnerabilities to fraud.
Another, still on-going, study by Civitas Institute finds that 832 people over 112 voted by absentee ballot in 2012, but there are only 330 people over 110 in all of the U.S. according to the 2010 census. 68.5% of those amazing over-112-years-old Americans were Democrats (SURPRISE!), 27.5% Republicans, and 4% unaffiliated. A glitch causes ballots to default to January 1, 1900 when voters do not enter their birth date, which accounts for most of this. This is just one of many problems with NC voter rolls, which are in a shambles and vulnerable to fraudulent votes.
Simpson concludes:
“the Obama administration…have shown themselves over and over to be completely contemptuous of the law – from vote fraud to Fast-n-Furious; from Benghazi-gate to recess appointments and unconstitutional executive orders, the list is endless. As I described in a WorldNetDaily article last November, the Obama administration was willing to use whatever means at its disposal to win this election, legal and illegal. Up until now, my assumption has been that, while they plainly engaged in vote fraud in some circumstances, it wasn’t enough to throw the election. Depending upon whether or not they used tricks like this nationwide – and they probably did – they may have in fact stolen this election.”
+++
“…the North Carolina State Board of Elections (SBE) and the Obama 2012 Campaign conspired to register at least 11,000 people via the Internet in violation of state law.”

GASP!!! That’s a conspiracy!!!

Just tell that to the next pretentious media personality snootily dismissing by deriding those looney “conspiracy theorists.”
H/t Obama Release Your Records
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0