284
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
284 points (99.0% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3316 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So he apparently didn't actually vote twice. He voted early. Then, on the day of the election he went to a polling place to attempt to vote again. When they looked up his name, they saw he had already voted and presumably didn't allow him to vote again. Because he didn't actually vote twice, there's no way they'd be able to find him guilty of voting twice. That'd be like charging someone with murder where the victim is still alive. They ended up charging him with attempted voter fraud. And if he told them something like "Had they allowed me in and given me a ballot I would not have filled it out and voted again. I was just testing the system." I could see people going easy on one of their own.
We punish people for DUI's harshly because they COULD cause harm. They get charges beyond the DUI when someone IS harmed. This is like saying a person drove a car at parade full speed but ran into a baracade. "I was just testing the baracade to make sure the people in the parade would be safe."
But driving under the influence is literally the charge. There's also reckless endangerment and other tack on charges. You couldn't necessarily tack on attempted homicide, because intent is required.
In this case, attempted voter fraud is literally the charge. Sentencing guidelines are a state level decision.
That's just how the law works. If you want more punishment for failed voter fraud, pressure the state to increase the sentencing guidelines.
"was acquitted of attempted illegal voting"
Maybe you read something different than I did. He was acquitted of attempting to do what he did.
Therefore someone driving drunk, should be acquitted of driving drunk, right? That is worded as the attempt is the charge, not the act.
Which is why I compared it to something that we ban because it could injure someone, and then change the charges when they do harm someone.
Ahh, I guess I misread. I thought they got convicted for attempted voter fraud but acquitted of voter fraud.
Like I said, intent is a large part of the law. A lot of crimes don't get charged because intent is a high threshold to prove. Just because it seems the intent is obvious, proving it beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law is a very different matter.
Except he didn't vote twice. He got in line to do it. He was turned away. From there he could try to say he never actually intended to vote again and would have not filled out another ballot and submitted it.
The drink driving analogy to this is walking to your vehicle while drunk with your keys in your hand. Or sitting in your vehicle. In many states and jurisdictions if you are sitting in the car even without keys or actual intent to drive you can be convicted of "DUI".
Charge: "Attempted voter fraud"
That says nothing about voting twice, it says attempting.
He showed up tried to vote, got denied, lied to the police saying that it wasn't him, and then when he showed up to court obviously has to admit he did attempt to do so, but only did so because he was testing the system.
What part did I miss?
I'd say we can look up what the actual charge is listed as for that state, but honestly I think we might be better off not searching things about such right now.
Had you read the actual statute you'd have found "voter fraud" to be the actual act of voting twice. In another section the modifier attempted is defined as basically attempting a crime defined elsewhere. So you can complain about justice not being served all you want, but the jury was not convinced he would have voted twice. You can say you'd have convicted him even, but you weren't on the jury. I'm not arguing whether he should or shouldn't have been convicted. The original question that prompted this chain was how he wasn't convicted. I was providing a simple explanation as to why. Accept it or not. The part you missed was the part you explicitly said you didn't look into. The actual law on this issue.