Surely, his sentencing will exceed hers right? Right?
“When he came to Georgia, he was aware that he was registering to vote illegally. He knew when he went in all nine times and signed that voter certificate, he was voting illegally,” he said last February.
Administrative Law Judge Lisa Boggs agreed, and issued Pritchard a $5,000 fine, and ordered that he receive a public reprimand from the State Election Board.
Surely, you jest?!
he pleaded guilty, admitted he made a “stupid mistake”
The string of conscious decisions over the length of time it took him to do that are in no way a "stupid mistake".
6 years for voting when it's also claimed to be a democratic right is insane. USA is a very dysfunctional democracy. Starting with first past the post, which is to blame for the undemocratic 2 party system.
Preventing people in conflict with the law from voting, is an obvious undemocratic and oppressive policy too. Like saying you can only vote if you agree.
When you abuse the system to cheat at voting (as multiple GOP folks have been proven in court), I think it’s completely fair and correct to temporarily restrict your ability to participate. You’ve shown that you don’t treat it with the proper degree of responsibility.
The 6 years was for voting when the person believed he could. But it was punished harshly to oppress and create fear among black voters.
The White guy knowingly committed voter fraud, and only got probation.
Yes it would be fair in the 2nd case to issue punishment for voter fraud, but not in the first, since the unfairness clearly is that the person was prevented in performing his democratic right. Except USA is only barely a democracy, and democratic rights are trampled routinely.
If it was democratic right, major elections would be a national holiday
People in positions of power or authority should be held to a higher standard, not an equal or lower one. He should get the book thrown at him and several years to think about why fucking with the elections is a bad idea.
Haha - oh no, no. No, there are certain . . mmmmm nuances that distinguish that case from this case. Hahaha. You know these cases, they’re- they’re complex, right . . . it’s not just BLACK or WHITE, right? Haha right Texas?! Hahaha - yeah . . Texas gets it.
This just in, one of these was (finally) acquitted in appeals court, there has to be evidence they knew they weren't eligible (and being told you're eligible is pretty strong evidence to the contrary)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/28/crystal-mason-texas-woman-acquitted
Every accusation is a confession. Every single one. No exceptions.
At least when a Republican makes the accusation
Yup. Always. They can't see that everyone doesn't think and act like them.
I guess deflecting/projecting is a common manipulation technique that slimebags learn.
It's always projection.
"I KNOW there's fraud because I did it myself!"
That's what makes me nervous about Pizzagate
Fortunately, that seems to just be an outcropping of blood libel conspiracism.
I kinda figure that was Epstein.
VOTEFRAAAAAAUD!!!
*commits massive vote fraud*
A republican projecting their own unethical behavior?? Surely this is an isolated incident.
Shocked, I tell you! Never saw it coming!!
What next? Republicans raping kids or smth?
I understand his thought process: "i voted nine times and they still won, either I suck very hard or they voted more times than me" Sorry mate, reality is hard
Fuck these people.
I wonder whether he believed the lie that the election was rigged. If he justified it to himself by saying "well, the other side is doing it." Horrific.
Edit: I made a false assumption that this was 9 votes in the same election, where it was actually 9 different instances where he would have been allowed to vote, were it not for prior conviction. See the comment below (or the article- my bad) for clarification.
Edit 2: removed the piece in my edit about probation, it wasn't applicable.
RFTA. It's so short, FFS.
He didn't vote 9 times in the 2020 election (or since then). He was on probation in PA for a felony and couldn't legally vote in GA, but did anyway. I would assume in 9 different elections. He claims he thought it was legal for him to do so. Had he not been on probation in PA, all his votes would have been legal. (In fact, I believe he should have been able to vote, as I don't think being convicted of a crime should remove this fundamental right. But that's kind of besides the point here)
He broke the law and should be punished for it, especially for being one who claims that the people were voting illegally, but even guessing that he was doing this because he thought the 2020 election was stolen makes absolutely zero sense, because the bulk of these times (if not all of them) happened before then.
A lot of countries where the whole ID systems are a bit shaky use this system where a finger is dipped in dye once you've voted. Some US states should implement that.
(Does not apply in this case, though, as at it was pointed out to me, the issue is that he was in jail or something and thus couldn't vote. Unlike most countries where people in jails/prisons can vote as they are still people)
He didn’t actually vote 9 times in one election. Voting twice in an election is insanely rare. A bigger issue is votes being miscounted, which accounts for much larger discrepancies than illegal voting. Not that it’s a huge discrepancy, just that illegal voting is so rare
Oh, right, it's about that weird US thing that people that have been jailed shouldn't vote.
Because if you're starving and grab stuff for your children that you can afford, then you shouldn't vote. It just makes sense, a responsible person should just drown their children to balance their budget.
Wait, then they couldn't vote either. Curse you voting authority, it's like you don't want some people to vote at all!
It's only felons who can't vote. Grabbing some food for your kids would likely be a misdemeanor, which means you could still vote.
Is that true in all states?
I just checked and in my home state of PA, convicted felons only lose their right to vote when they're in prison. If they're on parole or probation they're allowed to vote. People convicted of a misdemeanor can vote from jail.
So I guess it varies a lot more than I thought.
I'm not in the US, but like a lot of the world, I've been watching it from afar from quite awhile. And to us it's both a somewhat familiar and a very strange place. Some of us go there sometimes (I did, several times). It doesn't really change that initial impression (it didn't for me at least). To clarify, it doesn't mean I didn't like the US. I found it very interesting, I loved the nature (because it's so empty). But the culture is...
You know those Twilight Zone kind of shows where you think you're in the same dimension, but you're actually not? And the longer you stay the weirder and more menacing it gets? That's the US when you're from Europe. With the weird religious people popping up all over the place, you noticing all the weird food stuff, all the weird legal stuff, and it goes on and on and on. But there are still Europe folks that go for the so called American Dream. So maybe it's just me.
Anyway this voting thing is an example of the weirdness of the US to the rest of us (it's at least true for Europe, but it also works for many more places, as long as you don't run into dictatorships).
You know those Twilight Zone kind of shows where you think you’re in the same dimension, but you’re actually not? And the longer you stay the weirder and more menacing it gets? That’s the US when you’re from Europe.
It's like that from the inside, too.
It’s always projection with them. No exceptions.
Of all the Republican faces...
he looks like he smells of deli meat
Deli meat and old cigarette smell, like what sticks to old tech that hasnt been near a cigarette for over a decade but it still lingers.
No way
Lock this mother fucker up!!!!
How can it even be possible to vote illegally once let alone so many times. Id be whinning about it too!
politics
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