According to this WCCO article, an 86 year old St. Peter resident is being charged with felony voter fraud after forgetting that she voted twice in the same election. Voter fraud was a hot topic during the most recent election and the public was told by conservatives that it was occurring on a large scale even when it most definitely was not. However, this highlights the type of voter fraud which occurs and how our tax dollars have to pay to hunt down these horrendous and vicious criminals.
From the article:
Margaret Schneider, 86, says she forgot she had voted by absentee ballot in the 2012 primary election and about a month later, on Aug. 14, the great-great-grandmother went to her polling place to vote.
[...]
“I just don’t know what to think, I am so nervous about it,” Schneider said. “I didn’t realized I had (voted twice) and I wish they would understand that people my age have an (occasional) lapse in memory but they don’t understand, I guess.”
Schneider said she has voted in every presidential election since 1948, when Harry Truman defeated Thomas Dewey.
A police report notes the voter roster at Schneider’s polling place, which shows she had already voted absentee, but the election judge didn’t stop her from voting again.
[...]
Nicollet County Attorney Michelle Zehnder Fischer doesn’t comment on specific cases, but says that in general, if there’s probable cause to show a crime occurred, she is required to prosecute.
Fischer had to go back more than 100 years to find precedent in this case, and it was the 1800s the last time someone in Minnesota was prosecuted for voting twice.
Aside from the stresses placed on an 86 year old woman and on the taxpayers’ wallets, the most important piece above is the last paragraph: “the 1880s (was) the last time someone in Minnesota was prosecuted for voting twice.” Then why are we even looking at this? It’s pointless, it’s expensive, and it’s helping to kill an 86 year old faster than she should. It was investigated, an error in process was found to have occurred, let her go.
What do you think about this one? Should the state, even though there is specific wording in the state Statutes which says she must be brought before the grand jury? Should the law’s wording change faster than it is? Is it ever worth prosecuting an 86 year old considering the cost of potential incarceration of the elderly? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
March 8th, 2013 at 8:19 am
Ridiculous use of tax dollars. Common sense should enter the equation somewhere. My guess is she’ll not receive any punishment – perhaps a mild talking to. One can only hope. I feel sorry for her.
March 8th, 2013 at 8:30 am
In one article I read about this, the prosecutor indicates that they looked for any kind of loophole they could find in order to drop the charges but there was not one available.
To me this is just a bunch of hype. I would suggest the media interviews and such that this woman has been subjected to is going to pay a bigger part in shortening her life than whatever the prosecution of this would do.
I would suggest that law enforcement and the prosecuting attorney has more than likely done the right thing by helping this person understand that no judge is going to throw her in jail or more likely not even convict her based on the evidence and it will all go away.
As well, you can’t fault the prosecution for doing their job. You can’t arbitrarily decide to do nothing when the letter of the law indicates that you have to.
The real problem here is likely how the law was written since clearly it does not exclude someone who made an “honest mistake” or however you want to term this one.
Yes, it is unfortunate, but there is probably more hype about this one to sell papers or get internet clicks than there really needs to be.
March 8th, 2013 at 9:08 am
Local prosecutors were able to find a “loophole” that allowed them not to prosecute hundreds of cops that broke the law by looking at drivers’ license photos.
Too bad this old lady isn’t a cop.
March 8th, 2013 at 10:18 am
Hey Bill – Totally off the topic, I thought you might find this link interesting…
http://www.dead.net/features/greatest-stories-ever-told/greatest-stories-ever-told-cassidy
March 8th, 2013 at 11:02 am
Grateful Dead-Most overrated band ever.
March 8th, 2013 at 11:39 am
Sundar: UpWithTheMooses shared that w/me on Facebook yesterday. Woot!
March 8th, 2013 at 11:41 am
lefty, you really don’t want to get into this talk w/me knowing what shitty fucking music you have on the iPad in your living room.
March 8th, 2013 at 12:25 pm
Good reply, Bill! :)
March 8th, 2013 at 12:56 pm
I always seem to be the one on the wrong end of a debate but didn’t this really happen?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163
Relating to the story, should you be allowed to vote if you can’t remember details… like whether you voted or not?
March 8th, 2013 at 1:01 pm
Yeah, I must have missed the part when you scanned 11,000 songs, none of which were recorded by that fucking hippie loser band.
March 8th, 2013 at 3:48 pm
I hope that election just is kicked out. They only have a few things they are supposed to stay on top of and that is one of them.
stupid ass county attorney.. Really this was the only think you could do? Come on. I’m sure if you as the major party heads, none of them are interested in seeing this gal prosecuted. It should have never gone forward.
And I agree, even though I was for voter id, if you’re not gonna do raise the bar requiring Id’s, what the hell are you doing prosecuting this case? Stupid lawyers. I wonder what the Secretary of State’s take is on this case?
March 8th, 2013 at 6:03 pm
Twoboot, the proposed amendment in MN would not have stopped the incident that you linked to. Felons can still have photo IDs.
For that matter, it wouldn’t have stopped this one either. She wasn’t misrepresenting who she was.
March 8th, 2013 at 10:34 pm
If I were selected to be on a jury for this person, I simply would not vote to convict her.
Jury nullification has it’s place, but hardly anyone knows what it is or what it means.
March 8th, 2013 at 11:01 pm
Because judges tell you in their instructions that its illegal.
March 9th, 2013 at 1:39 pm
It’s one our “constitutional” rights so how could that be? Yeah I know what you’re saying though. In fact if stood out in courthouse parking lot handing out leaflets explaining jury nullification I would be arrested.
But nullification happens when for instance, people like pot farmers who get busted and go to trial. So much so that federal prosecutors sometimes won’t even bother to present cases to a grand jury for indictment.
Since this is a state’s jurisdiction issue the rules might be different I suppose.
Honestly I cannot believe any jury would vote to convict or as been stated before the judge can put her on probation.
It’s a waste of time and money.
March 9th, 2013 at 3:51 pm
Judges may try to tell you that jury nullification is illegal, but it simply is not. The Minnesota Supreme court as well as the Federal courts have decisions on the book approving of it. Judges hate it. But if you’re on the jury, you can do it. Lots of references on the google if you look.
March 9th, 2013 at 4:45 pm
I didn’t say it was illegal; I’m just telling you why people are not likely to utilize it.
March 10th, 2013 at 8:20 am
Can’t help but think someone in the County Attorney’s office is a Right Winger and this is some sort of “I told you so” payback for the voter ID drubbing Righties took. So what if they don’t prosecute? What’s gonna happen to them? Totally assinine and rediculous waste of time and money. BTW, stay on topic. If you wanna play with each other, try texting.
March 10th, 2013 at 8:20 am
Nothing like a pound of overcompensation for an ounce of cure. The blame lies with the knucklehead that saw in the book that she had already voted and let her do it again anyway.
March 10th, 2013 at 8:21 am
I have not read the law but generally the prosecution has to prove INTENT. Good luck doing that in this case.
March 10th, 2013 at 4:13 pm
BigBear,
Do you like the Grateful Dead?
lefty
March 10th, 2013 at 6:05 pm
The Grateful Dead were ok, but I am certainly no DeadHead. I came of age in the late Sixties and there were many, many great bands. The Dead aren’t at the top of the list by any stretch.
March 11th, 2013 at 7:59 am
Tim,
I don’t think the voter ID law would have changed much of anything concerning stopping voter fraud. I do think having more people voting illegally than the margin between two candidates is hardly non-existent problem. Why have laws if you aren’t going to enforce them?