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 the system for voter fraud.

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.

  • meco03211@lemmy.world
    111·
    3 hours ago

    So he apparently didn’t actually vote twice. He voted early. Then, on the day of the election he went to a polling place to attempt to vote again. When they looked up his name, they saw he had already voted and presumably didn’t allow him to vote again. Because he didn’t actually vote twice, there’s no way they’d be able to find him guilty of voting twice. That’d be like charging someone with murder where the victim is still alive. They ended up charging him with attempted voter fraud. And if he told them something like “Had they allowed me in and given me a ballot I would not have filled it out and voted again. I was just testing the system.” I could see people going easy on one of their own.

    • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
      3·
      44 minutes ago

      Just a little more context, because the article is really light on the details. After he had been turned away, the cops showed up at his house to interview him and he denied that it was him and it must have been someone else. This defense only came up later after his arreest.

      It’s BS and I suspect the only reason he was let off is because the town is overwhelmingly red and the jury was packed with Trump supporters. And of course they don’t care about voter fraud when their side commits it, only when they imagine the other side is.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      132·
      2 hours ago

      We punish people for DUI’s harshly because they COULD cause harm. They get charges beyond the DUI when someone IS harmed. This is like saying a person drove a car at parade full speed but ran into a baracade. “I was just testing the baracade to make sure the people in the parade would be safe.”

      • Wrench@lemmy.world
        11·
        2 hours ago

        But driving under the influence is literally the charge. There’s also reckless endangerment and other tack on charges. You couldn’t necessarily tack on attempted homicide, because intent is required.

        In this case, attempted voter fraud is literally the charge. Sentencing guidelines are a state level decision.

        That’s just how the law works. If you want more punishment for failed voter fraud, pressure the state to increase the sentencing guidelines.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          4·
          1 hour ago

          “was acquitted of attempted illegal voting”

          Maybe you read something different than I did. He was acquitted of attempting to do what he did.

          Therefore someone driving drunk, should be acquitted of driving drunk, right? That is worded as the attempt is the charge, not the act.

          Which is why I compared it to something that we ban because it could injure someone, and then change the charges when they do harm someone.