Pages: 1 2

vote fraud

31 years ago, the RNC entered into a consent agreement to settle a lawsuit brought by the DNC not to peruse suspected voter fraud or prevent voter fraud. The RNC has been held to that consent agreement to this day. Each time they go to court to remove the consent agreement, a particular judge comes out of retirement to rule against the RNC requests.

New Jersey District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, appointed by Jimmy Carter, ruled to keep in place a 30-year-old restriction against the RNC “which is national in scope, limiting the Republican National Committee ‘s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention”

The judge cited voter suppression of minorities outweighing the impact of voter fraud.

There are serious reasons for concern of voter fraud:

1) Pew Research Center states in 2012 -

“Voter registration in the United States largely reflects its 19th-century origins and has not kept pace with advancing technology and a mobile society. States’ systems must be brought into the 21st century to be more accurate, cost-effective, and efficient.

Research commissioned by the Pew Center on the States highlights the extent of the challenge:

  • Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.
  • More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters.
  • Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.”

2)  The American people support voter ID laws by an overwhelming 74% (Washington Post.)

Hispanic Americans support voter ID laws by an overwhelming 71 % (Pew Research Center.)

3) The presidential election of 2000 was won by only 500 votes.

4) Local elections can be won by just a handful of votes.

5) People who believe their vote does not count or will be canceled out by fraud are unlikely to bother to vote.

Multiple left leaning groups are being criminally investigated for voter fraud schemes in the swing state of Florida.

6) 160 counties in the U.S. have more registered voters than people living in those counties.

Question: Have you seen any documented examples of voter suppression?

They appear to only be in Michelle Obama’s dreams.

Judicial Watch challenged her accusation, but it went unanswered.

Scott Gessler, CO Sec of State stated: “These accusations are built on a foundation of sand,” referring to voter suppression. He also states that the opposition to voter ID is well-financed and organized. “Disenfranchisement hysteria is, frankly, silly”

During a 1981 gubernatorial election in New Jersey, concern was raised over voter suppression; and the Democratic National Committee sued the RNC. That one incident in NJ 30 years ago came with a “consent decree”, stipulating that the RNC was prohibited from pre-election “ballot security” activates:

As modified in 1987, the Decree defined “ballot security activates” to mean “ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud.

One section is particularly disturbing. Areas where minorities are living are in particular off limits for voter fraud protection measures. What message does this send to the DNC? Answer: Voter fraud will be allowed in minority areas; please target your efforts in those neighborhoods as this court is giving you a get-out-of-jail free card:

(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;

It should come as no surprise that voter fraud issues are rampant in the swing states districts where minorities make up a large percentage of the population.

Furthermore, the Court held that the RNC was barred from asserting this argument because the RNC willingly entered the Decree as a means of settling the initial 1981 lawsuit and the RNC again consented to the Decree, as modified, in 1987. The District Court also held that the Decree did not violate the First Amendment because, under the Decree, the RNC is free to communicate with state parties about subjects other than ballot security. Additionally, the Court noted that the First Amendment applies only to state actions and does not prevent private parties from agreeing to refrain from certain types of speech.

Prior to the 2012 elections, the RNC again attempted to have the consent decree vacated. An Obama-appointed Judge Joseph Greenway, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, denied the petition.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Get the news the mainstream media doesn't report. Sign up to get our daily newsletter and like us on Facebook