Voter fraud is actually a subsection of Election fraud, so it's not clear to me from reading the statute what the penalty would be.
This is the penalty for an election fraud.
quote:
¤19-4 Penalties; disqualification for, removal from office; reports of convictions to chief election officer. Every person found guilty of an election fraud shall be fined not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. Besides the punishment, the person shall be disqualified from voting and from being elected to, holding or occupying any office, elective or appointive. If the person so convicted holds any office, either elective or appointive, at the time of the conviction, the office shall at once and without mention in the sentence or other proceeding be vacated by the conviction. The judge before whom the conviction is had shall immediately transmit to the chief election officer and to the respective county clerks the name of the person, the offense of which the person has been convicted and the sentence of the court. [L 1970, c 26, pt of ¤2; am L 1970, c 188, ¤39; gen ch 1985; am L 2007, c 55, ¤1]
Cross References
Classification of offense and authorized punishment, see ¤¤701-107, 706-610(2), 640, 660.
Another section says that there are two types of Election offenses, Election frauds and misdemeanors. Voting fraud is not a misdemeanor and as I said it is a subsection of election fraud, so the above might apply.
Posts: 290
Threads: 4
Joined: Jul 2014
I really appreciate Kathy clarifying the controlling law on this matter. Algier Dino's use of Blacks bordered on a fraud in itself.
AD misrepresents the charge by breaking it down to its component parts and using Common Law to define each part.
Then opines;
"Before all you knowledgeable voters consider accusations being made on this blog you should at least KNOW
what is the truth of FRAUD.
Voter Fraud has NO legal context in RJ's and Sativa's accusations and complaint.
THEREFORE
my unlearned opinion is there will be no case and the accusations are hate motivated. "
Talk about a bald attempt to manipulate the reader, AD is a master at misrepresentation in this piece.
The facts of where TEH was registered at various times speak for themselves , and no attempt by AD to spin them can change
those facts. TEH is responsible, as all citizens are, to comply with the law. As a journalist she has a more difficult time arguing ignorance,
which in any case is no excuse.
If "hate" is a component a disinterested observer would balance the "Roast" behavior by TEH against the histrionics of RJH at the forum.
A pox on both their political houses for lowering the bar. The only possible benefit is that if the animosity leads to the body politic being better informed
about a candidate (on the Facts) then the flame is worth the candle.
This is the statute that goes over penalties and distinctions between felonies and misdemeanors.
http://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/2009/...1-0107-htm
and this section discusses classes of felonies:
http://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/2012/...n-706-610/
A felony means that the sentence may be a year or more.
One hopes it doesn't come to that and mostly likely it won't, but nevertheless it looks like it could disqualify her to hold office.
You can blame the people who looked at her records for that, or you can hold accountable the person who allegedly disregarded the law on voting within the district where you reside.
I'm no expert on how Puna districts fall in past and present, but I do know that the two State offices have different districts than the County Council, so a change of address may affect eligibility in one race or multiples.
I know that Districts 4 and 5 existed in 2012, and I know that Dist. 5 was the Zendo Kern race, and a Hawaiian Acres address would have been District 5. I was told that voting from the Surf Shop was District 4, which in 2012 was Fred Blas vs. Gregor Ilagan, and Tiffany has gotten down on Ilagan in the past and that Tiffany supported Fred Blas.
I'm not sure why people are saying she would have had the same ballot choices.
Posts: 4,902
Threads: 83
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 290
Threads: 4
Joined: Jul 2014
No, don't see a vendetta, see that a mean spirited person may have stumbled upon or ferreted out facts that are germane to all observers.
Posts: 1,217
Threads: 18
Joined: Jan 2014
Obey the law or don't - just don't cry 'vendetta' or 'foul play' when you get caught.
Posts: 9
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2014
Clearly I neglected to point to the meaning of the Black's definition of FRAUD. INTENT is the key
to proving fraud. If you cannot prove intent you will not prove fraud.
...the brave may not live forever but the cautious do not live at all...
quote:
Originally posted by Algier Dino
Clearly I neglected to point to the meaning of the Black's definition of FRAUD. INTENT is the key
to proving fraud. If you cannot prove intent you will not prove fraud.
I understand the element of intent with fraud, but you are talking about fraud as personal injury tort, at least I think so.
This is not a civil personal injury tort. It is a crime defined by a statute. I've read a few cases on this, and while "knowing" is an element, it's arguable only knowing at a common level of understanding that the information to which you are swearing is untrue. For example, swearing you live in Pahoa Village when you live in Hawaiian Acres.
Ignorance of what residence means is not a good defense. The affidavit informs you it is a crime to sign if what you say is not true, and states penalties. Therefore the average person, if there is a question about residency, would be prudent to inquire before signing.
Intent to behave fraudulently is not required, from what I could see. A reckless disregard for the truth of the affidavit is enough, unless there's a diminished capacity argument.
The cases I read were on the second instance, of voting when not entitled to vote, and they involved immigrants who were not citizens who voted anyway. (And the penalty was deportation if they lost, denial of their citizenship application.)
Posts: 290
Threads: 4
Joined: Jul 2014
t HRS regarding residency relevant to TEH 2010/2012;
3) If a person resides with the person's family in one place, and does business in another, the former is the person's place of residence..."
Pretty clear and therefore tough to rationalize how a savvy reporter didn't know what she was doing...which btw displays "intent". She was trying to accomplish something thru falsifying her residency but we know not what. Best thing now is "full disclosure" ...ironic for a reporter to be in this predicament ( and one of her own making)
This is the topic on the voter fraud complaint.
Voter fraud complaint and candidate eligibility challenge are not the same issue.
Kathy
|
