Thought:
if the 2020 Presidential election alone cost $14bn, that establishes the value of an individual's vote in the range $58 (for all potential voters) & $90 (if only counting actual votes).
Wouldn't disenfranchising voters by excluding > 12 legit ballots be felony larceny?
if the 2020 Presidential election alone cost $14bn, that establishes the value of an individual's vote in the range $58 (for all potential voters) & $90 (if only counting actual votes).
Wouldn't disenfranchising voters by excluding > 12 legit ballots be felony larceny?
Similarly, wouldn't suppression of >20 eligible voters by means of closing down polls or other acts that don't quite fit the definition of fraud also be considered felony larceny?
Just taking a rough stab at this before bedtime -
while state officials aren't USG employees, one could theorize that excluding legitimately cast ballots in a Presidential election could be considered unlawful conversion of 'property' -
while state officials aren't USG employees, one could theorize that excluding legitimately cast ballots in a Presidential election could be considered unlawful conversion of 'property' -
either the ballot itself as property, being converted from useful for the voter's intent....
or as the franchise itself is protected by the courts, it could itself be considered 'property,' especially since it has an value externally defined by election spending.
or as the franchise itself is protected by the courts, it could itself be considered 'property,' especially since it has an value externally defined by election spending.
While it would prob. be easier to prosecute @ state level, campaign contributions crossing state lines (interstate 'commerce') and the ballots themselves determining which candidates serve in federally elected office COULD put cases in reach of federal jurisdiction...
especially for those times when state officials who order those acts block prosecution of those crimes at the state level.
Again, just a rough thought...
And possibly a justification any elections officers could use to refuse orders that would put them at risk of being criminally prosecuted for excluding legally cast ballots.
😉
And possibly a justification any elections officers could use to refuse orders that would put them at risk of being criminally prosecuted for excluding legally cast ballots.
😉
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
