Anonymous ID: 2a1ff9 Aug. 7, 2022, 9:09 a.m. No.17140488   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0730 >>1982

>>17140189

>>17140189

>>17140189

>>17140189

>>17140189

>>17140189

>>17140189

>>17140189

>>17140319

>New Jersey Consent Decree

DNC v. RNC Consent Decree

In 1982, after caging in predom­in­antly African-Amer­ican and Latino neigh­bor­hoods, the Repub­lican National Commit­tee and New Jersey Repub­lican State Commit­tee entered into a consent decree with their Demo­cratic party coun­ter­parts. Under that decree and its 1987 successor, the Repub­lican party organ­iz­a­tions agreed to allow a federal court to review proposed “ballot secur­ity” programs, includ­ing any proposed voter caging.

 

The consent decree has been invoked several times, by the parties to the decree and by others. In late 2008, the Demo­cratic National Commit­tee and Obama for Amer­ica sought to enforce the consent decree, claim­ing that the RNC had not submit­ted alleged ballot secur­ity oper­a­tions for review. After the elec­tion, the RNC asked the federal court to vacate or substan­tially modify the decree. The court denied the RNC’s motion to vacate the consent decree and ordered the decree remain in effect until Decem­ber 2017. The RNC then appealed to the Third Circuit, which unan­im­ously rejec­ted the appeal and affirmed the District Court’s decision. A subsequent peti­tion for rehear­ing en banc by the full Third Circuit, and a certi­or­ari peti­tion to U.S. Supreme Court, were denied.

 

On Octo­ber 26, 2016, the DNC filed a motion asking that the court find the RNC had viol­ated the decree. On Novem­ber 5, after abbre­vi­ated discov­ery, the district court denied the DNC’s request, ruling that the DNC had not provided suffi­cient evid­ence of coordin­a­tion between the Trump campaign and the RNC on ballot-secur­ity oper­a­tions, but will allow the DNC to offer further evid­ence after the elec­tion.

 

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/dnc-v-rnc-consent-decree