• Rhaedas@fedia.io
    26·
    23 days ago

    No lawyer, but so often you’ll see a judge discuss the intent of the law vs. the letter of the law and make judgement on that, sometimes helping to change the law in question. Here we have a case where the argument is that he isn’t paying someone to vote a certain way or even to vote, so it’s not technically breaking existing law. But we all see what’s going on, so the intent is clear.

    Nothing will happen to him mainly because of him being untouchable, plus the time frame. This just needs to serve as a lesson to act on for the future and get the laws caught up with the times, where absolutely the rich and powerful are influencing political direction in so many ways, and have been for a long time. It needs to stop.

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      211·
      23 days ago

      It’s illegal to offer someone something of value, which explicitly includes lottery entries, in exchange for their being registered to vote.

      No idea why there’s a “may be” about any of this.

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        2·
        23 days ago

        Could that depend on state law, since states control the actual election processes? I would think if it was universally written that clear then actual justice officials would be saying so.

        • Nougat@fedia.io
          1·
          23 days ago

          I wish I had the statute at hand. Maybe I saw it on a Glenn Kirschner video? I’ll try and look it up later, but I know for sure it is written down somewhere.

          • Rhaedas@fedia.io
            5·
            23 days ago

            What gets me is how even if there isn’t a hard law, the response should be to cease the activities because they are such a gray area, not this vague “oh gee, this might be a problem maybe”.

            • Nougat@fedia.io
              8·
              23 days ago

              Found it.

              https://electionlawblog.org/?p=146397

              52 U.S.C. 10307©: “Whoever knowingly or willfully gives false information as to his name, address or period of residence in the voting district for the purpose of establishing his eligibility to register or vote, or conspires with another individual for the purpose of encouraging his false registration to vote or illegal voting, or pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both…”

              DOJ Election Crimes Manual at 44: “The bribe may be anything having monetary value, including cash, liquor, lottery chances, and welfare benefits such as food stamps. Garcia, 719 F.2d at 102. However, offering free rides to the polls or providing employees paid leave while they vote are not prohibited. United States v. Lewin, 467 F.2d 1132, 1136 (7th Cir. 1972). Such things are given to make it easier for people to vote, not to induce them to do so. This distinction is important. For an offer or a payment to violate Section 10307©, it must have been intended to induce or reward the voter for engaging in one or more acts necessary to cast a ballot.… Moreover, payments made for some purpose other than to induce or reward voting activity, such as remuneration for campaign work, do not violate this statute. See United States v. Canales 744 F.2d 413, 423 (5th Cir. 1984) (upholding conviction because jury justified in inferring that payments were for voting, not campaign work). Similarly, Section 10307© does not apply to payments made to signature-gatherers for voter registrations such individuals may obtain. However, such payments become actionable under Section 10307© if they are shared with the person being registered.”

              • Rhaedas@fedia.io
                41·
                22 days ago

                You know what his loophole is? He’s not offering money TO vote or GET registered, he’s just making the terms of the lottery be that you have to BE registered. Again, it’s obvious, but by the letter I think it avoids this.