That is not the actual statement, but only that the Republican party was prohibited from engaging in voter fraud investigations because the then Dem narrative was that Republicans were trying to suppress the black vote. I think they still say that. So, in effect, if the Republican party needs a judge’s approval before investigating voter fraud, the effect was to permit Democrat election fraud. Per another post reply, it looks like that may be a different consent decree than the one that was recently revoked. But, maybe not, my research back in 2012 was pretty thorough.
Vazquez ruled in early 2018 that the DNC had not shown a violation of the consent decree and that the consent decree was expired as of 2017, as it was written.
The DirtyDems appealed the new Vazquez ruling to the Third Circuit [the prize they were going for was an extension of the consent decree for ANOTHER eight years - till 2025].
It was a Dubya judge and a Grabby Poppy judge, along with an Obama judge, that turned the DNC down flat in 2019: