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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    382 months 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      352 months 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        62 months ago

        They think it’s okay to do because they think they need to “balance out” the enormous amounts of voter fraud they’re convinced is being committed by Democrats. The problem is, that’s a complete lie, the Dems have done nothing. Every news story I’ve read about voter fraud in this election cycle (3 or 4?) where they actually mention the party, it’s been a Republican.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      222 months 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.”

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        32 months 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 months 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            22 months ago

            Ahh, I guess I misread. I thought they got convicted for attempted voter fraud but acquitted of voter fraud.

            Like I said, intent is a large part of the law. A lot of crimes don’t get charged because intent is a high threshold to prove. Just because it seems the intent is obvious, proving it beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law is a very different matter.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            12 months ago

            Except he didn’t vote twice. He got in line to do it. He was turned away. From there he could try to say he never actually intended to vote again and would have not filled out another ballot and submitted it.

            The drink driving analogy to this is walking to your vehicle while drunk with your keys in your hand. Or sitting in your vehicle. In many states and jurisdictions if you are sitting in the car even without keys or actual intent to drive you can be convicted of “DUI”.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              32 months ago

              Charge: “Attempted voter fraud”

              That says nothing about voting twice, it says attempting.

              He showed up tried to vote, got denied, lied to the police saying that it wasn’t him, and then when he showed up to court obviously has to admit he did attempt to do so, but only did so because he was testing the system.

              What part did I miss?

              I’d say we can look up what the actual charge is listed as for that state, but honestly I think we might be better off not searching things about such right now.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                12 months ago

                That says nothing about voting twice, it says attempting.

                Had you read the actual statute you’d have found “voter fraud” to be the actual act of voting twice. In another section the modifier attempted is defined as basically attempting a crime defined elsewhere. So you can complain about justice not being served all you want, but the jury was not convinced he would have voted twice. You can say you’d have convicted him even, but you weren’t on the jury. I’m not arguing whether he should or shouldn’t have been convicted. The original question that prompted this chain was how he wasn’t convicted. I was providing a simple explanation as to why. Accept it or not. The part you missed was the part you explicitly said you didn’t look into. The actual law on this issue.