Mexican woman in Texas sentenced to 8 years in prison for voter fraud

[Jaroslaw99]

The thing that I almost never see when this topic comes up is a discussion of what are the actual rules concerning voting and how the courts decide issues.  The media dances all around this issue while giving the appearance of "reporting" on it.  For example, I have heard a million times, including on this page "there is little or NO evidence of illegal voting."  Well, if there are no mechanisms in place to find that, there will never be evidence.  Look on any state's website for the requirements to vote.  It will say ID is required and a social security number.  Look what is required to get ID (or driver's license) - proof of citizenship is NOT required. It is not hard to get a social security card either.  When various laws are introduced to require proof of citizenship at the polls, they are knocked down by the Supreme Court.  I will leave it to readers to find these articles, there are plenty.  Nation of Change dot org documents them all the time and they are a very "progressive" website.

 

Second, while I have no idea how pervasive illegal voting is, and maybe it is not a huge deal, the fact is, we really don't know.  To say there is none is simply untrue.  Look at an old case - the case of Bob Dornan and Loretta Sanchez.  He charged voter fraud and it was found illegals had voted but the state (of California) dismissed it because the illegal voters were non English speakers and concluded they were "confused" and "misinformed" about voting.  So there is evidence, but since it was dismissed, there was "no evidence."  My point is by definition illegal people are already doing something illegal by being here.  Why would they confine their activities once here to only legal things?

 

It would be nice if citizens took voting seriously and a higher percentage voted then there wouldn't even be these close calls to worry about.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Jaroslaw99

[cork1958]

13 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

No, what matters is that voter fraud is statistically irrelevant yet conservatives have made it a partisan issue to suppress the vote of millions of US citizens in a manner that disproportionately affects Democrats. Preventing millions of people from voting to reduce a few hundred / thousand illegal votes is grossly disproportionate and fundamentally undemocratic.

What matters is that fraud is fraud, no matter a citizen, holding a green card or what ever!!

 

With good time served, she's out in 4 years anyway.

[TPreston]

1 hour ago, Jaroslaw99 said:

The thing that I almost never see when this topic comes up is a discussion of what are the actual rules concerning voting and how the courts decide issues.  The media dances all around this issue while giving the appearance of "reporting" on it.  For example, I have heard a million times, including on this page "there is little or NO evidence of illegal voting."  Well, if there are no mechanisms in place to find that, there will never be evidence.  Look on any state's website for the requirements to vote.  It will say ID is required and a social security number.  Look what is required to get ID (or driver's license) - proof of citizenship is NOT required. It is not hard to get a social security card either.  When various laws are introduced to require proof of citizenship at the polls, they are knocked down by the Supreme Court.  I will leave it to readers to find these articles, there are plenty.  Nation of Change dot org documents them all the time and they are a very "progressive" website.

 

Second, while I have no idea how pervasive illegal voting is, and maybe it is not a huge deal, the fact is, we really don't know.  To say there is none is simply untrue.  Look at an old case - the case of Bob Dornan and Loretta Sanchez.  He charged voter fraud and it was found illegals had voted but the state (of California) dismissed it because the illegal voters were non English speakers and concluded they were "confused" and "misinformed" about voting.  So there is evidence, but since it was dismissed, there was "no evidence."  My point is by definition illegal people are already doing something illegal by being here.  Why would they confine their activities once here to only legal things?

 

It would be nice if citizens took voting seriously and a higher percentage voted then there wouldn't even be these close calls to worry about.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/?utm_term=.1e6c4ff2d154

31 credible incidents per billion ballots cast;

[theyarecomingforyou]

4 hours ago, cork1958 said:

What matters is that fraud is fraud, no matter a citizen, holding a green card or what ever!!

 

With good time served, she's out in 4 years anyway.

Indeed. Voter fraud is a criminal offence and should be punished harshly, as it undermines the democratic process.

[mudslag]

Quote

 “She can own property; she can serve in the military; she can get a job; she can pay taxes. But she can’t vote, and she didn’t know that.”

 

 

She is allowed to server the country, just not vote in it. That's a backwards ass system.

[T3X4S]

23 hours ago, cork1958 said:

What matters is that fraud is fraud, no matter a citizen, holding a green card or what ever!!

 

With good time served, she's out in 4 years anyway.

It used to be federal crimes were 1:1 for time served.  If you rec'd 20 years - you did 20 years.  I know recently drug-related crimes were given special terms, but I dont know what the rule is for other crimes.

[DConnell Member]

11 hours ago, mudslag said:

 

 

She is allowed to server the country, just not vote in it. That's a backwards ass system.

Why? Voting is a right reserved for citizens, always has been. As a legal immigrant, she has the option of working toward citizenship. If she's invested enough to want to vote, it would only make sense to make the commitment of becoming a citizen. Of course, with this on her record, that avenue may well be denied to her.

[DocM]

2 hours ago, T3X4S said:

It used to be federal crimes were 1:1 for time served.  If you rec'd 20 years - you did 20 years.  I know recently drug-related crimes were given special terms, but I dont know what the rule is for other crimes.

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 eliminated parole for federal crimes,  but they can get time off for good behavior. Not much, but some. OTOH,  federal judges can add a period of “supervised release” to the end of a sentence. An example would be for sexual predators to enforce continuing treatment & supervision.

[T3X4S]

42 minutes ago, DocM said:

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 eliminated parole for federal crimes,  but they can get time off for good behavior. Not much, but some. OTOH,  federal judges can add a period of “supervised release” to the end of a sentence. An example would be for sexual predators to enforce continuing treatment & supervision.

OK thanks - I remember hearing about "federal crimes are 1 for 1" - but knew that wasnt across the board.