284

A man who attempted to vote twice in Virginia’s 2023 election was acquitted of attempted illegal voting on Monday, following his claims in court that he had been testing the system for voter fraud.

A Nelson County jury found 67-year-old Richardson Carter Bell Jr. not guilty of attempting to vote more than once in the same election. According to the Washington Post, Bell, a staunch supporter of former President Donald Trump, admitted voting early at his local registrar’s office only to also show up at a nearby polling place on Election Day.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago

It was a jury trial and the county went 51% trump four years ago...

So depends on what the jury makeup is.

From the linked washingtonpost article though ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/10/29/gop-voter-virginia-vote-twice/ : https://archive.is/U7AoW#selection-755.0-755.327 ), it sounds like the defense had a very good argument.

Defense attorney Matthew L. Pack contended that Bell would not have gone through with voting more than once in the same election — a felony punishable by one to five years in prison — if poll workers had actually handed him a ballot.

But he never got the chance to demonstrate that because

As it happened, the workers quickly discovered that he had already voted and turned him away.

Speaking neutrally, it's good that we have a system in place that requires a high level of evidence - such as regarding intent - before finding someone guilty. I'd just hope that it equally protects folks regardless of if they are blue or red.

There's a reason conspiracy to commit charges exist.

Oh, agreed. Should have a way to punish someone for trying (e.g. attempted murder charges because the police stopped the murder and saved the intended victim). But even then, one still has to be able to prove it, and the level of proof - beyond a reasonable doubt - is as high as it is for good reason.

Now, if the accused had encountered police detectives at that polling station instead of real election workers, I imagine it would have gone like this:

(Police detective posing as a poll worker prepares an otherwise blank but non-obviously spoiled ballot.)

"Ok sir, here's your ballot."

Choice A: "Thanks, here's the ballot, yay I just voted." "Sir, you're under arrest."

Choice B: "Um... actually I already voted." "Yes we know sir, I see it right here, but we were just testing you." "No, hey, wait, I was trying to test you." "..."

It's not a reasonable expectation to ask actual election workers - poll working volunteers - to do anything like the above, though.

[-] ThePantser@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Yup it's only illegal if your peers deem it. Which is why you should always stick to areas where you are a commoner and not an outsider. Which is why I avoid the south like it's radioactive.

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Yep. Sounds like jury nullification for Trump supporters if you get tried in the right place.

this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
284 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19126 readers
3800 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS