Because they were found to have been using “poll watchers” to unlawfully intimidate voters and interfere with the election process. And decided that voluntarily giving up certain kinds of poll-watch activities was preferable to potential hard time.
6 Likes
This is what prompted the case in the first place:
During the 1981 election, the Republican National Committee sent armed
off-duty law enforcement officers to the polls in minority neighborhoods
wearing arm bands identifying them as the “Ballot Security Task Force.”
They also put up warning posters warning against voting fraud, and
challenged the eligibility of voters.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/voter-intimidation-democrats-rnc-230352#ixzz4OmDJWYnG
4 Likes
Especially if you’re simultaneously directing your legal team to file sworn statements saying you’re not doing any of those things.
10 Likes
And I actually remember this going on. In Dallas they spread a rumor that anyone going to vote was going to be subject to arrest for any outstanding traffic tickets or warrants of any kind.
Then they sent off duty cops to predominantly African American precincts to scare the voters away.
5 Likes
both parties are allowed to, but the modern day GOP has often been found guilty of election law violations in regards to the practice.
4 Likes
And also if you watched Maddow’s show last night she gives the history of the Klan Act of 1871 regarding voter intimidation that was also cited in the filings against the RNC. Its a bit lengthy because she gives her usual history lesson first and then draws the connection half way through her presentation:
10 Likes
Yes so they lost the privilege.
1 Like
Excellent point.
1 Like
Ordinarily I might agree, but this is someone doing something illegal and lying about it. Also, that text says something about the sender, such as who uses that kind of language with a stranger.
So I say, considering the context, that last needs to be there.
6 Likes
This is breaking news. A judge telling RNC to explain their activities.
10 Likes
Hot damn! Good good good!
1 Like
I just don’t see the importance of this. they were breaking the decree anyway? Won’t they just continue to do so?
2 Likes
From Lincoln to modern day R poll watching, seamless and brilliant reporting.
@donotclicksend This is a good story from CNN about what poll watching is about. It is not supposed to be done as a way of intimidating voters but to assist voters and the watchers are supposed to have had training. Under the right circumstances it’s legal.
2 Likes
up to a point, but the thing to keep in mind is that if they are doing anything (even the events mentioned in this story) that could been seen as violating the consent decree, then that’s where they are royally screwed.
Mea Culpa in advance, but saying that you work for the RNC isn’t the issue here. Hiding that info and misusing the position is.
they want that paper to end.
chances are…
Not if they’re in contempt of court. Also, the consent decree is supposed to expire in Dec. 2017. The penalty for not following it is that it gets extended.
4 Likes
Sure - I don’t think I said anything that was contra to what you’re saying. They lost the privilege in the consent decree and given what is going on, that decree should be extended.
4 Likes
But they seem to just continue anyway. What is the real penalty to them?
1 Like
The decree is enforceable and they can be made to stop under pain of contempt of court which draws big fines and possible jail time if it continues.
7 Likes
So if they break it this time it gets extended but a second or third time then you get into additional consequences?