Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
While finding no evidence in support of vacating or significantly modifying the decree, the court did find that unforeseen unworkability allowed for a small change.Due to multiple allegations of voter suppression, the RNC has found itself defending intervenor lawsuits to enforce the decree. As the DNC does not face similar lawsuits, in the interest of equity the court changed the decree so only the DNC could seek to enforce it. The court also recognized that the requirement for the RNC to seek 20 day pre-clearance approval of any new ballot security tactics does not allow it to monitor new voter registrations in the few states that have adopted registration deadlines within 20 days of elections. The term was changed to a 10 day pre-clearance requirement. In response to the complaint that the decrees prohibition on voter intimidation at the polls was too vague, the definition of this tactic was clarified. Finally, in the hope that the RNC might change its behavior toward minority voters in the future, the court added a contingent termination date to the decree of eight years. If the decree is violated again, the deadline will be extended.
I guess you refussed to read teh link huh?
they have repetedlhy been charged with violating the consent decree which is basically an admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment.
I guess you refussed to read teh link huh?
they have repetedlhy been charged with violating the consent decree which is basically an admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment.
D.N.J.: Republican National Committee Still Bound by Consent Decree Prohibiting Voter Suppression — NSCLC Website
As for the public interest, the court found overwhelmingly that instances of voter fraud were dwarfed by voter suppression. Specifically, the type of voter fraud that the decree prevents the RNC from combating through voter caging and intimidation at the polls, in-person fraud, is practically nonexistent. Conversely, the court noted that there is ample evidence of the potential and prevalence of voter suppression, such as that recently documented by the Supreme Court in Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S.Ct. 1231 (2009).
How is it the media never lets us know about these cases?
how is it you feel compelled to troll this shit nearly every month? its a 1986 case, all they wanted was to change the restrictions on the GOP, but no surprise the liberal judge denied that....
why is it you ignore this:
you never seek to constantly remind people of that and that occured less than 3 years ago
While finding no evidence in support of vacating or significantly modifying the decree, the court did find that unforeseen unworkability allowed for a small change.Due to multiple allegations of voter suppression, the RNC has found itself defending intervenor lawsuits to enforce the decree. As the DNC does not face similar lawsuits, in the interest of equity the court changed the decree so only the DNC could seek to enforce it. The court also recognized that the requirement for the RNC to seek 20 day pre-clearance approval of any new ballot security tactics does not allow it to monitor new voter registrations in the few states that have adopted registration deadlines within 20 days of elections. The term was changed to a 10 day pre-clearance requirement. In response to the complaint that the decrees prohibition on voter intimidation at the polls was too vague, the definition of this tactic was clarified. Finally, in the hope that the RNC might change its behavior toward minority voters in the future, the court added a contingent termination date to the decree of eight years. If the decree is violated again, the deadline will be extended.
why aren't you defending them like you did acorn...your whole defense of acorn was that it was only allegations, no finding of guilt....
well....that is the same here, yet oddly, you believe there is guilt here....
hack
D.N.J.: Republican National Committee Still Bound by Consent Decree Prohibiting Voter Suppression — NSCLC Website
As for the public interest, the court found overwhelmingly that instances of voter fraud were dwarfed by voter suppression. Specifically, the type of voter fraud that the decree prevents the RNC from combating through voter caging and intimidation at the polls, in-person fraud, is practically nonexistent. Conversely, the court noted that there is ample evidence of the potential and prevalence of voter suppression, such as that recently documented by the Supreme Court in Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S.Ct. 1231 (2009).
How is it the media never lets us know about these cases?
how is it you feel compelled to troll this shit nearly every month? its a 1986 case, all they wanted was to change the restrictions on the GOP, but no surprise the liberal judge denied that....
why is it you ignore this:
you never seek to constantly remind people of that and that occured less than 3 years ago
why is it you don't seek to remind people of this truthmatters?
While finding no evidence in support of vacating or significantly modifying the decree, the court did find that unforeseen unworkability allowed for a small change.Due to multiple allegations of voter suppression, the RNC has found itself defending intervenor lawsuits to enforce the decree. As the DNC does not face similar lawsuits, in the interest of equity the court changed the decree so only the DNC could seek to enforce it. The court also recognized that the requirement for the RNC to seek 20 day pre-clearance approval of any new ballot security tactics does not allow it to monitor new voter registrations in the few states that have adopted registration deadlines within 20 days of elections. The term was changed to a 10 day pre-clearance requirement. In response to the complaint that the decrees prohibition on voter intimidation at the polls was too vague, the definition of this tactic was clarified. Finally, in the hope that the RNC might change its behavior toward minority voters in the future, the court added a contingent termination date to the decree of eight years. If the decree is violated again, the deadline will be extended.
why aren't you defending them like you did acorn...your whole defense of acorn was that it was only allegations, no finding of guilt....
well....that is the same here, yet oddly, you believe there is guilt here....
hack
Acorn was not the defendents, employees were.
those employees were found guilty of defrauding ACORN out of money.
how is it you feel compelled to troll this shit nearly every month? its a 1986 case, all they wanted was to change the restrictions on the GOP, but no surprise the liberal judge denied that....
why is it you ignore this:
you never seek to constantly remind people of that and that occured less than 3 years ago
why is it you don't seek to remind people of this truthmatters?
Why do yoiu pretend this cause is on par with keepimng thousands of voters from voting over decades right up until the present. BTW no case was there
Proove like I have proven to you with court documentation(not partisan bullshit sites) that these men commited a crime.
The republican party has stopped THOUSANDS of voters from voting.
We are not talking three random guys , we are talking about YOUR entire party being corrupt enough to conspire to stop Americans from exersizing their most sacred right.
Go jget teh cases in which ACORN is a convicted defendant.
I promise to honor your court documents.
Why dont you honor the ones I provided?
http://brennan.3cdn.net/484c0b5d69fb0379c1_kzm6b9f2t.pdf
Here is the consent drecreee itsself.
How fucked up does a party have to be for its monions to deny court documented proof of your paties crimes?
Didn't deny anything.http://brennan.3cdn.net/484c0b5d69fb0379c1_kzm6b9f2t.pdf
Here is the consent drecreee itsself.
How fucked up does a party have to be for its monions to deny court documented proof of your paties crimes?
http://brennan.3cdn.net/484c0b5d69fb0379c1_kzm6b9f2t.pdf
Here is the consent drecreee itsself.
How fucked up does a party have to be for its monions to deny court documented proof of your paties crimes?
Why are you so partisan you refuse court documentation?
