Texas woman gets 5 years in prison for voting illegally

[The Mark]

Sentence seems light. I’d like to see something along the lines of 12 years. And it should be uniformly applied along federal guidelines so that state judiciaries don’t enter into the mix. Unless the instances of fraud are local and state...then the states can sentence as they deem appropriate, but in my state I’d like to see them hammered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one should ever go to prison for voting when they aren't allowed - I'd maybe accept community service, but never prison.

 

[Chomsky]

No one should ever go to prison for voting when they aren't allowed - I'd maybe accept community service, but never prison.

I think that should be determined by the exact nature of the crime. If someone were egregiously voting illegally, say under multiple assumed names, why not?

 

[The Mark]

I think that should be determined by the exact nature of the crime. If someone were egregiously voting illegally, say under multiple assumed names, why not?

Because even that does not warrant a prison sentence.

I'd deal with voter fraud as follows:

If you are caught voting fraudulently, none of your votes (whether single or multiple) are counted, that election. Maybe some community service to think about what you've done.

If you are repeatedly caught voting fraudulently, more community service, maybe a voting ban for a year or so.

If you keep coming back and trying to vote fraudulently, even MORE community service, and a longer voting ban, possibly.

 

[JasperL]

LOL!! So let's say that this happened in a state that doesn't ask for photo ID... do you think she could have been convicted? What if it wasn't her casting the provisional ballot? Should she still go to jail since her name is connected to the ballot? :roll:

To vote in Texas you need a photo ID, therefor you can be more certain that the vote cast was actually cast by the person in question.

LOL!!! Your position is effectively before photo voter it wasn't possible to convict someone of voter fraud. LOL!!!

 

[Chomsky]

Because even that does not warrant a prison sentence.

I'd deal with voter fraud as follows:

If you are caught voting fraudulently, none of your votes (whether single or multiple) are counted, that election. Maybe some community service to think about what you've done.

If you are repeatedly caught voting fraudulently, more community service, maybe a voting ban for a year or so.

If you keep coming back and trying to vote fraudulently, even MORE community service, and a longer voting ban, possibly.

I dunno. We differ in opinion. If you egregiously scam votes, I think you should get a few days in the pokey.

 

[The Mark]

I dunno. We differ in opinion. If you egregiously scam votes, I think you should get a few days in the pokey.

Well, maybe a few days.

But FIVE ****ING YEARS?
And the maximum possible is TWENTY?!?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Guess how they knew her identity and could connect the vote back to her?

When you cast a "Provisional Ballot" your actual ballot is enclosed in an unmarked envelope that is then enclosed in an envelope that has your identifying data on it.

This is so that the electoral workers can check to see if the ballot in the inner unmarked envelope can be validly cast.

If the electoral workers determine that the ballot in the inner, unmarked, envelope can NOT be validly cast, then the inner, unmarked, envelope is destroyed unmarked and the ballot is never actually cast.

To send someone to jail for five years for (essentially) saying

"I think that I'm allowed to vote, but my name is not on the voter's list, so I want to fill in a ballot before the polls close, have you determine if I am allowed to actually cast that ballot later, and if you determine if I am actually allowed to vote to count my vote but if you determine that I am not actually allowed to vote to destroy the ballot unopened."​

is just a bit much as it would mean that EVERYONE who casts a "Provisional Ballot" is risking incarceration should it later be determined that they were ineligible to vote.

Essentially this woman was sent to jail for five years for APPLYING TO vote, since her ballot was destroyed unopened.

 

[Moon]

Wow, you mean Texas and Iowa have different penalties for their own state laws??

Oh wait, that wasn't the angle you were going for, was it?

 

[jmotivator]

When you cast a "Provisional Ballot" your actual ballot is enclosed in an unmarked envelope that is then enclosed in an envelope that has your identifying data on it.

This is so that the electoral workers can check to see if the ballot in the inner unmarked envelope can be validly cast.

If the electoral workers determine that the ballot in the inner, unmarked, envelope can NOT be validly cast, then the inner, unmarked, envelope is destroyed unmarked and the ballot is never actually cast.

If you do not need to provide a photo ID with that provisional ballot then how is the polling official to know if the person casting that provisional ballot is who they say they are?

Take the same story but put it in California, where the provisional ballot is taken without photo ID... when the women is taken to court she claims that her identity was stolen and the person that cast the ballot was not her... how would the state of California verify that it was actually her at the polling site?

To send someone to jail for five years for (essentially) saying

"I think that I'm allowed to vote, but my name is not on the voter's list, so I want to fill in a ballot before the polls close, have you determine if I am allowed to actually cast that ballot later, and if you determine if I am actually allowed to vote to count my vote but if you determine that I am not actually allowed to vote to destroy the ballot unopened."​

is just a bit much as it would mean that EVERYONE who casts a "Provisional Ballot" is risking incarceration should it later be determined that they were ineligible to vote.

Essentially this woman was sent to jail for five years for APPLYING TO vote, since her ballot was destroyed unopened.

Not sure why you are addressing me with this argument since I made no comment on whether the punishment fits the crime. I was responding to the comment by another poster who tried to use this case as an example of photo IDs not working. My whole point is that this is a case that demonstrates that photo IDs do actually work since you couldn't actually prosecute a fraudulent voter in this case without the photo ID to connect the woman to her vote cast.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If you do not need to provide a photo ID with that provisional ballot then how is the polling official to know if the person casting that provisional ballot is who they say they are?

A good point and one that I don't disagree with.

Take the same story but put it in California, where the provisional ballot is taken without photo ID... when the women is taken to court she claims that her identity was stolen and the person that cast the ballot was not her... how would the state of California verify that it was actually her at the polling site?

I would imagine that it would run something along the lines of

LAWYER - Do you see the person who cast this ballot in the Courtroom today?

WITNESS - Yes Sir.

LAWYER - Can you please identify that person for the Court?

WITNESS - Yes, Sir. It's that person wearing __[fill in the blank]__ and sitting immediately to the left of the Defence Lawyer.

LAWYER - Thank you, no further questions.​

which is completely different from

LAWYER - Did the person who cast this ballot present any photo ID when they did so?

WITNESS - Yes Sir.

LAWYER - Is that person in the Courtroom today?

WITNESS - Yes Sir.

LAWYER - Can you please identify that person for the Court?

WITNESS - Yes, Sir. It's that person wearing __[fill in the blank]__ and sitting immediately to the left of the Defence Lawyer.

LAWYER - Thank you, no further questions.​

Not sure why you are addressing me with this argument since I made no comment on whether the punishment fits the crime.

Because you are one of the few people "discussing" this matter who appears to know the difference between ACTUALLY voting and filling in a PROVISIONAL ballot.

I was responding to the comment by another poster who tried to use this case as an example of photo IDs not working. My whole point is that this is a case that demonstrates that photo IDs do actually work since you couldn't actually prosecute a fraudulent voter in this case without the photo ID to connect the woman to her vote cast.

As in my "courtroom example" about, you most certainly can prosecute - it's just not as easy.

PS - In this case the woman was NOT "pretending to be" anyone else, she presented her own photo ID.