Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*
Options
Comments
-
Manic Moran wrote: »We had city elections on Saturday. Mayor, city council, and a couple of propositions.
if you count local elections it gets even more ridiculous. you guys sure do like electing officials for the most mundane of administrative tasks.0 -
I view this as an utter embarrassment to the United States of America.*
https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/1389234127954751488?s=20Bartman attempted to use his mother-in-law's social security number to obtain another ballot, but was thwarted when he falsified additional information requested by the state.
In pleading guilty, Bartman admitted that he registered both deceased women as Republicans last August and later managed to cast an illegal vote for Trump.
He knowingly committed criminal acts to undermine the integrity of our elections,
https://www.yahoo.com/news/her-ballot-didnt-count-she-142949302.htmlOn Election Day 2016, Crystal Mason went to vote after her mother insisted that she make her voice heard in the presidential election. When her name didn’t appear on official voting rolls at her polling place in Tarrant County, Texas, she filled out a provisional ballot, not thinking anything of it.
Mason’s ballot was never officially counted or tallied because she was ineligible to vote: She was on supervised release after serving five years for tax fraud. Nonetheless, that ballot has wrangled her into a lengthy appeals process after a state district court sentenced her to five years in prison for illegal voting, as she was a felon on probation when she cast her ballot.
Mason maintains that she didn’t know she was ineligible to vote.
Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times
“This is very overwhelming, waking up every day knowing that prison is on the line, trying to maintain a smile on your face in front of your kids, and you don’t know the outcome,” Mason said in a phone interview. “Your future is in someone else’s hands because of a simple error.”
Her case is headed for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest state court for criminal cases, whose judges said on Wednesday that they had decided to hear it. Mason unsuccessfully asked for a new trial and lost her case in an appellate court.
The new appeal is the last chance for Mason, 46, who is out on appeal bond, to avoid prison. If her case advances to the federal court system, Mason will have to appeal from a cell.
Alison Grinter, one of Mason’s lawyers, said the federal government made it clear in the Help America Vote Act of 2002 that provisional ballots should not be criminalized because they represent “an offer to vote — they’re not a vote in themselves.”
She said that Mason didn’t know she was ineligible and was still convicted, and that Texas’ election laws stipulate that a person must knowingly vote illegally to be guilty of a crime.
“Crystal never wanted to be a voting rights advocate,” Grinter said Thursday. “She didn’t want to be a political football here. She just wanted to be a mom and a grandmother and put her life on track, but she’s really taken it and run with it, and she refuses to be intimidated.”
A Tarrant County grand jury indicted Mason for a violation of the Texas election laws, a spokesperson for the Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney’s Office said in a statement.
“Our office offered Mason the option of probation in this case, which she refused,” the statement said. “Mason waived a trial by jury and chose to proceed to trial before the trial judge.”
In March 2018, Judge Ruben Gonzalez of Texas’ 432nd District Court found Mason guilty of a second-degree felony for illegally voting.
According to Tommy Buser-Clancy, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, Mason should never have never been convicted. If there is ambiguity in someone’s eligibility, the provisional ballot system is there to account for it, he said.
“That’s very scary,” he said of Mason’s conviction, “and it guts the entire purpose of the provisional ballot system.”
If her eligibility was incorrect, he said, “that should be the end of the story.”
The appeals court’s decision could set an important precedent for the future of how the public interprets voting, especially if they’re confused, according to Joseph Fishkin, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. He said he hoped that the court establishes a principle not to “criminalize people for being confused about the complexities of the interaction between the criminal law and election law.”
Fishkin said that he and many other law experts believe that if the court upholds Mason’s conviction, the state will be in direct conflict with the federal Help America Vote Act.
“It’s very important for basic fairness and for participation around the country that people are confident that when they act in good faith and aren’t trying to pull a fast one, that you’re not going to start charging them for crimes,” Fishkin said Thursday. “If this case stands, that’s obviously concerning, because a lot of people who may not understand the details of their status or who is allowed to vote will be deterred from voting.”
Across the United States, 5.2 million Americans cannot vote because of a prior felony conviction, according to the Sentencing Project, a research organization dedicated to crime and punishment.
The office of the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, said that 531 election fraud offenses have been prosecuted since 2004. The outcomes of those cases were not immediately available. At least 72% of Paxton’s voter fraud cases have targeted people of color, according to The Houston Chronicle.
Mason’s cause has received support from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. Clark Neily, a senior vice president for criminal justice at the institute, said the case represented an example of excessive criminalization.
“It’s putting people in a position where they can commit a criminal offense without even knowing that they’re in violation of any law,” he said.
Celina Stewart, chief counsel at the League of Women Voters, which has filed supporting briefs on Mason’s behalf, said her case sent “a very clear message” that people with felony convictions should be cautious.
“She’s being made an example, and the example is that you don’t want returning citizens, Black people, Black women to vote,” she said. “That’s an egregious narrative, and we have to push back on that, because that’s not how democracy works.”
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
She wasn't attempting to do anything wrong, and the point of a provisional ballot is that if you can't prove your eligibility to vote on election day, you usually have in most cases a week to get your provisional ballot certified or its rejected. That's it, it's not the intent of the law (or even apparently of the law written in TX) that failure to do so is tantamount to attempted fraudulent voting. Yet somehow this person was convicted of doing so. Presumably forewent a trial for cost and there being no dispute of the facts involved, didn't expect a judge to seemingly legislate from the bench at her.
(*also, the Digiorno Crossaint Pizza. What the f*ck. Our culture is meme'ing itself)0 -
I view this as an utter embarrassment to the United States of America.*
https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/1389234127954751488?s=20
He knowingly committed criminal acts to undermine the integrity of our elections,
https://www.yahoo.com/news/her-ballot-didnt-count-she-142949302.html
She wasn't attempting to do anything wrong, and the point of a provisional ballot is that if you can't prove your eligibility to vote on election day, you usually have in most cases a week to get your provisional ballot certified or its rejected. That's it, it's not the intent of the law (or even apparently of the law written in TX) that failure to do so is tantamount to attempted fraudulent voting. Yet somehow this person was convicted of doing so. Presumably forewent a trial for cost and there being no dispute of the facts involved, didn't expect a judge to seemingly legislate from the bench at her.
(*also, the Digiorno Crossaint Pizza. What the f*ck. Our culture is meme'ing itself)
You are not comparing like with like.
He lied to vote and got a warning
She lied to vote AND is a convicted felon so knew she wasn't eligible. Was she out on parole?
Regardless she has previous for fraud.0 -
You are not comparing like with like.
He lied to vote and got a warning
She lied to vote AND is a convicted felon so knew she wasn't eligible. Was she out on parole?
Regardless she has previous for fraud.
He definitely knew what he was doing was illegal, she didn't know.
His vote did count, hers didn't.
He got parole, she got jail.
He is white, she is black.
It's not like with like alright.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »He definitely knew what he was doing was illegal, she didn't know.
His vote did count, hers didn't.
He got parole, she got jail.
He is white, she is black.
It's not like with like alright.
Careful, all the racist sympathisers will be in saying there's nothing to see here and that systemic racism is a myth.0 -
Advertisement
-
WhomadeGod wrote: »I'm with you on this one.
Both parties situations and circumstances are completely different.
Yep. Everyone thinks so.
And the wrong person is in jail.0 -
What did ye all make of Jon Voight's twitter message yesterday ?
He is clearly not a fan of Biden, big fan of Donald though.
https://twitter.com/jonvoight/status/13889145483467448330 -
MisterAnarchy wrote: »What did ye all make of Jon Voight's twitter message yesterday ?
He is clearly not a fan of Biden, big fan of Donald though.
https://twitter.com/jonvoight/status/1388914548346744833
Didn’t watch it, literally couldn’t care less about anything he has to say.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »He definitely knew what he was doing was illegal, she didn't know.
His vote did count, hers didn't.
He got parole, she got jail.
He is white, she is black.
It's not like with like alright.
Convicted felons are not allowed to vote0 -
Smee_Again wrote: »Didn’t watch it, literally couldn’t care less about anything he has to say.
I think you'd like what he has to say, Jon has a beautiful speaking voice.0 -
Advertisement
-
WhomadeGod wrote: »I agree he should be in jail 100%
Im just saying that their cases are completely different and comparing the two isn't fair in my opinion.
He wasn't on probation she was is a big one.
There is more than race at play here.
Was she on probation?
Yes she was. "Supervised release"
She voted as a felon which is illegal. She broke her probation. It doesn't matter what colour you are if you break probation,it's back to jail.
"Mason maintains that she didn’t know she was ineligible to vote"
No court in the world accepts ignorance as an excuse.
Open and shut case. Some people have lost the run of themselves over race. Intelligent normally rational people are not doing themselves proud.0 -
You are not comparing like with like.
He lied to vote and got a warning
She lied to vote AND is a convicted felon so knew she wasn't eligible. Was she out on parole?
Regardless she has previous for fraud.
Her conviction was for tax fraud, not election fraud, though yes I am unclear as to the details. Did they prove intent or not in that one either, I wondered so:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txnd-4_13-cv-00078/pdf/USCOURTS-txnd-4_13-cv-00078-0.pdfMovant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud
the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. She received
a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, a twolevel enhancement for running a tax return preparation business
and deriving a substantial portion of her income from such
business, a two-level enhancement for using sophisticated means,
and a four-level enhancement for being a leader or organizer of a
Case 4:13-cv-00078-A Document 10 Filed 04/03/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID 67
fraudulent scheme involving five or more participants or being
otherwise extensive. The total offense level equaled 29 1 and
with a criminal history category of II the guideline range was
87-108 months; however I the statutory maximum was 60 months.
Movant was sentenced to 60 months imprisonment and a three-year
term of supervised release l and was also ordered to make full
restitution in the amount of $4 / 206 1 805.49. The court entered
judgment on March 19 1 2012 1 and movant did not appeal. Movant
timely filed her section 2255 motion on January 31 1 2013.
Well, alrighty then.
But there seems to be an issue here of she did not know? She was on parole, she signed documents that she was provisionally eligible but did she sign any document as part of parole or whatever that suggested she knowingly understood her right to vote was ineligible, and what more, I'm very unclear on what the harm is to the state, the point is to check her ineligibility find out she's not and just dismiss the vote isn't it, unless you can prove some conspiracy to knowingly defraud the system in this case, and not just completely hinging upon the implication that she did the previous fraud scheme and so therefore, in all future endeavors, is up to something conniving to the point it be assumed as true until disproven.0 -
Her conviction was for tax fraud, not election fraud, though yes I am unclear as to the details. Did they prove intent or not in that one either, I wondered so:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txnd-4_13-cv-00078/pdf/USCOURTS-txnd-4_13-cv-00078-0.pdf
Well, alrighty then.
"During federal supervised release, a probation officer supervises the convict. A former prisoner who violates the conditions of supervised release may be sent back to prison, potentially to remain there until the end of the supervised release term"0 -
WhomadeGod wrote: »Well that's Jon Voight cancelled
But there is no such thing as cancel culture...0 -
"During federal supervised release, a probation officer supervises the convict. A former prisoner who violates the conditions of supervised release may be sent back to prison, potentially to remain there until the end of the supervised release term"
Did this parole officer ever have a conversation at any point about the election or voting? You'd think a parole officer would be able to point to a chain email or something to their parolees 'remember you cannot vote etc' or have some kind of form she signed acknowledging her voting status an ineligibility. Where is the felon instructed about the forfeiture of their right to vote is what I'm asking and where can it be demonstrated to have occurred.0 -
"Mason maintains that she didn’t know she was ineligible to vote"
No court in the world accepts ignorance as an excuse.
Sometimes they do
https://casetext.com/case/delay-v-state-7
In this case the GOP state bench of Texas ruled their guy couldn't be convicted of money laundering because it couldn't be proven that he had determined to launder money.0 -
Did this parole officer ever have a conversation at any point about the election or voting? You'd think a parole officer would be able to point to a chain email or something to their parolees 'remember you cannot vote etc' or have some kind of form she signed acknowledging her voting status an ineligibility. Where is the felon instructed about the forfeiture of their right to vote is what I'm asking and where can it be demonstrated to have occurred.
Are you seriously running with its the parole officers fault because he may have not told her! The age of personal responsibly is over in America I see.
Ignorance is no excuse. No court would accept it.
Like the drink driver that is stopped and says I didn't know I couldn't drive after 6 pints.
That's up to her to know her voting rights0 -
Ignorance is no excuse. No court would accept it.
Like the drink driver that is stopped and says I didn't know I couldn't drive after 6 pints.
That's up to her to know her voting rights
So are we just accepting the premise she didn't know her eligibility, assume her personal inculpability and still think that deserves a 5 year sentence?
But ALSO think that knowingly embarking on a conspiracy to commit voter fraud getting out on probation is 'eh fine'??0 -
So are we just accepting the premise she didn't know her eligibility, assume her personal inculpability and still think that deserves a 5 year sentence?
Whether she knew or not is irrelevant. She broke the law while on probation. She (a convicted felon) tried to vote which is illegal.
The length of sentence is at the discretion of the judge. Perhaps he or she doesn't look kindly on parole breakers.0 -
Whether she knew or not is irrelevant. She broke the law while on probation. She (a convicted felon) tried to vote which is illegal.
Actually it's entirely relevant.The length of sentence is at the discretion of the judge. Perhaps he or she doesn't look kindly on parole breakers.
Or he's a complete racist, or he's an outer space alien, but none of this addresses the point, it dodges it.
On what planet does it make sense that of 2 illegal voters:
one doesn't realize she's ineligible as a parolee;
the other knows his dead mother is ineligible and he goes through conspiratorial efforts to cast fraudulent votes;
Both have cast ballots that are ineligible: one for a parolee, whom is the person who cast it, and one for a dead relative, whom the person who cast it is decidedly not;
You're punishing these two crimes: why would it make sense for the conspirator submitting dead peoples votes to get probation while the parolee gets 5 years in prison?0 -
Advertisement
-
Actually it's entirely relevant.
Or he's a complete racist, or he's an outer space alien, but none of this addresses the point, it dodges it.
On what planet does it make sense that of 2 illegal voters:
one doesn't realize she's ineligible as a parolee;
the other knows his dead mother is ineligible and he goes through conspiratorial efforts to cast fraudulent votes;
Both have cast ballots that are ineligible: one for a parolee, whom is the person who cast it, and one for a dead relative, whom the person who cast it is decidedly not;
You're punishing these two crimes: why would it make sense for the conspirator submitting dead peoples votes to get probation while the parolee gets 5 years in prison?
Breaking parole is an automatic trip back to prison.
The other guy gets a warning. May have been first offense, admitted guilt immediately etc.
All you see is skin colour. Facts don't seem to matter anymore. Everything is race with some of you.
You are now blocked because it's like arguing into a vacuum0 -
Breaking parole is an automatic trip back to prison.
The other guy gets a warning. May have been first offense, admitted guilt immediately etc.
All you see is skin colour. Facts don't seem to matter anymore. Everything is race with some of you.
You are now blocked because it's like arguing into a vacuum
In fact what we were doing was discussing the facts, but okay.
If at no point in a prisoners life does a prison officer, a judge, etc. explain to them their loss of civil rights in meaningful terms then there is a problem, sometimes known as a violation, as it were, of civil rights. I don't necessarily claim that problem exists, I am only asking where it happens that a prisoner would have been instructed of this loss of a civil right, so that there is no misunderstanding that they could not have possibly been eligible to vote.0 -
-
WhomadeGod wrote: »Per a statement by the Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney Office, a letter detailing her inability to vote was sent shortly after her incarceration for tax fraud. Mason claims she never received the letter, as she was already incarcerated.
Now see that starts to sound like one of those problems aforementioned. A civil rights problem.
Voting does not require any literacy test either, so if this is the standard for how Texas informs its felons that they can't vote, it falls under the mark where the case it seems it will have teeth at the federal level.0 -
No court in the world accepts ignorance as an excuse.
Ireland?
Remember the CC case back in 2006 which sent everyone into a panic when the court decided that a law which provides no possibility of an honest mistake or ignorance as a defense was unConstitutional?
https://www.irishtimes.com/sponsored/ombudsman-for-children/looking-back-at-the-cc-case-1.1765178
Mens Rea is a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
That said, there is also the “common knowledge” standard. You can’t go around claiming “I didn’t know I wasn’t allowed have a gun as a felon”, for example, or “I didn’t know it was illegal to shoot people”. (Well, barring very rare exceptions).
That said, Texas and PA may have very different laws as sentencing guidelines for such things. One can’t make a comparison between the cases without also making a comparison of the legal framework of each State0 -
MisterAnarchy wrote: »But there is no such thing as cancel culture...
So I'm guessing that explains this type of tweet in my feed
https://twitter.com/EricG1247/status/1389406699484639232?s=200 -
Mod
Can we get back to the topic at hand.
The last few pages of comments are best suited to BLMthread.0 -
HR1 was passed by the House just the other week with the endorsement of President Joe Biden and the White House, including the proposed subtitle, Democracy Restoration Act 2021:
SEC. 1401. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the “Democracy Restoration Act of 2021”.
SEC. 1402. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The right to vote is the most basic constitutive act of citizenship. Regaining the right to vote reintegrates individuals with criminal convictions into free society, helping to enhance public safety.
(2) Article I, section 4, of the Constitution grants Congress ultimate supervisory power over Federal elections, an authority which has repeatedly been upheld by the Supreme Court.
(3) Basic constitutional principles of fairness and equal protection require an equal opportunity for citizens of the United States to vote in Federal elections. The right to vote may not be abridged or denied by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, gender, or previous condition of servitude. The 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments to the Constitution empower Congress to enact measures to protect the right to vote in Federal elections. The 8th Amendment to the Constitution provides for no excessive bail to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
(4) There are 3 areas in which discrepancies in State laws regarding criminal convictions lead to unfairness in Federal elections:
(A) The lack of a uniform standard for voting in Federal elections leads to an unfair disparity and unequal participation in Federal elections based solely on where a person lives.
(B) Laws governing the restoration of voting rights after a criminal conviction vary throughout the country, and persons in some States can easily regain their voting rights while in other States persons effectively lose their right to vote permanently.
(C) State disenfranchisement laws disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minorities.
(5) Two States (Maine and Vermont), the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico do not disenfranchise individuals with criminal convictions at all, but 48 States have laws that deny convicted individuals the right to vote while they are in prison.
(6) In some States disenfranchisement results from varying State laws that restrict voting while individuals are under the supervision of the criminal justice system or after they have completed a criminal sentence. In 30 States, convicted individuals may not vote while they are on parole and 27 States disenfranchise individuals on felony probation as well. In 11 States, a conviction can result in lifetime disenfranchisement.
(7) Several States deny the right to vote to individuals convicted of certain misdemeanors.
(8) An estimated 5,200,000 citizens of the United States, or about 1 in 44 adults in the United States, currently cannot vote as a result of a felony conviction. Of the 5,200,000 citizens barred from voting, only 24 percent are in prison. By contrast, 75 percent of the disenfranchised reside in their communities while on probation or parole or after having completed their sentences. Approximately 2,200,000 citizens who have completed their sentences remain disenfranchised due to restrictive State laws. In at least 6 States—Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia—more than 5 percent of the total voting-age population is disenfranchised.
(9) In those States that disenfranchise individuals post-sentence, the right to vote can be regained in theory, but in practice this possibility is often granted in a non-uniform and potentially discriminatory manner. Disenfranchised individuals must either obtain a pardon or an order from the Governor or an action by the parole or pardon board, depending on the offense and State. Individuals convicted of a Federal offense often have additional barriers to regaining voting rights.
(10) State disenfranchisement laws disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minorities. More than 6 percent of the African-American voting-age population, or 1,800,000 African Americans, are disenfranchised. Currently, 1 of every 16 voting-age African Americans are rendered unable to vote because of felony disenfranchisement, which is a rate more than 3.7 times greater than non-African Americans. Over 6 percent of African-American adults are disenfranchised whereas only 1.7 percent of non-African Americans are. In 7 States (Alabama, 16 percent; Florida, 15 percent; Kentucky, 15 percent; Mississippi, 16 percent; Tennessee, 21 percent; Virginia, 16 percent; and Wyoming, 36 percent), more than 1 in 7 African Americans are unable to vote because of prior convictions, twice the national average for African Americans.
(11) Latino citizens are disproportionately disenfranchised based upon their disproportionate representation in the criminal justice system. In recent years, Latinos have been imprisoned at 2.5 times the rate of Whites. More than 2 percent of the voting-age Latino population, or 560,000 Latinos, are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction. In 34 states Latinos are disenfranchised at a higher rate than the general population. In 11 states 4 percent or more of Latino adults are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction (Alabama, 4 percent; Arizona, 7 percent; Arkansas, 4 percent; Idaho, 4 percent; Iowa, 4 percent; Kentucky, 6 percent; Minnesota, 4 percent; Mississippi, 5 percent; Nebraska, 6 percent; Tennessee, 11 percent, Wyoming, 4 percent), twice the national average for Latinos.
(12) Disenfranchising citizens who have been convicted of a criminal offense and who are living and working in the community serves no compelling State interest and hinders their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
(13) State disenfranchisement laws can suppress electoral participation among eligible voters by discouraging voting among family and community members of disenfranchised persons. Future electoral participation by the children of disenfranchised parents may be impacted as well.
(14) The United States is the only Western democracy that permits the permanent denial of voting rights for individuals with felony convictions.
Some of which will directly address the issues raised above, such as when a felon becomes eligible to vote again becoming a standardized process:SEC. 1405. NOTIFICATION OF RESTORATION OF VOTING RIGHTS.
(a) State Notification.—
(1) NOTIFICATION.—On the date determined under paragraph (2), each State shall notify in writing any individual who has been convicted of a criminal offense under the law of that State that such individual has the right to vote in an election for Federal office pursuant to the Democracy Restoration Act of 2021 and may register to vote in any such election and provide such individual with any materials that are necessary to register to vote in any such election.
(2) DATE OF NOTIFICATION.—
(A) FELONY CONVICTION.—In the case of such an individual who has been convicted of a felony, the notification required under paragraph (1) shall be given on the date on which the individual—
(i) is sentenced to serve only a term of probation; or
(ii) is released from the custody of that State (other than to the custody of another State or the Federal Government to serve a term of imprisonment for a felony conviction).
(B) MISDEMEANOR CONVICTION.—In the case of such an individual who has been convicted of a misdemeanor, the notification required under paragraph (1) shall be given on the date on which such individual is sentenced by a State court.
(b) Federal Notification.—
(1) NOTIFICATION.—Any individual who has been convicted of a criminal offense under Federal law shall be notified in accordance with paragraph (2) that such individual has the right to vote in an election for Federal office pursuant to the Democracy Restoration Act of 2021 and may register to vote in any such election and provide such individual with any materials that are necessary to register to vote in any such election.
(2) DATE OF NOTIFICATION.—
(A) FELONY CONVICTION.—In the case of such an individual who has been convicted of a felony, the notification required under paragraph (1) shall be given—
(i) in the case of an individual who is sentenced to serve only a term of probation, by the Assistant Director for the Office of Probation and Pretrial Services of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts on the date on which the individual is sentenced; or
(ii) in the case of any individual committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, during the period beginning on the date that is 6 months before such individual is released and ending on the date such individual is released from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.
(B) MISDEMEANOR CONVICTION.—In the case of such an individual who has been convicted of a misdemeanor, the notification required under paragraph (1) shall be given on the date on which such individual is sentenced by a court established by an Act of Congress.
Such establishment of notification is likely to reduce the possibility a parolee could unwittingly cast an ineligible vote. As will of course the root mechanism for the subtitle:SEC. 1403. RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.
The right of an individual who is a citizen of the United States to vote in any election for Federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense unless such individual is serving a felony sentence in a correctional institution or facility at the time of the election.
Crystal Mason's situation would no longer arise, any parolee would be eligible to vote. Don't know how this is meant to work with halfway houses though.0 -
MisterAnarchy wrote: »But there is no such thing as cancel culture...
Tucker Carlson is the top rated “news” show on cable.
Why hasn’t he been a victim of this “cancel culture” who are silencing conservative voices?they/them/theirs
And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek
0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement