Former Republican state legislator Austin Smith pleaded guilty Monday to what he previously called “ludicrous” charges that he personally forged more than 100 signatures on his petitions for reelection last year.

  • Null User Object@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    attempted

    So, what, it’s only actual fraud if you don’t get caught? He submitted fraudulent documents. Full stop. He successfully committed fraud.

    • glimse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Legally, it is attempted fraud. He got caught and it’s only “fraud” if the damage is done. But “attempted fraud” isn’t nothing and he’s getting hit with multiple charges.

      The thing we should be mad about is the possibility that he won’t have a felony on his record (the judge can decide if it’s a felony after his probationary period, as explained in the article)

  • ORbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Smith pleaded guilty to the reduced charges as part of a plea agreement that gives him the possibility of avoiding a felony conviction. In Arizona law, when a person without a criminal history is found guilty of a low-level felony, the judge can wait until that person’s probation is finished before designating the crime a felony or misdemeanor. Essentially, that means if Smith completes any probation he’s sentenced to without violations, his conviction could be classified a misdemeanor instead of a felony.

    And that’s important, because felons in Arizona can’t vote or hold elected office unless their rights are restored by a judge.

    Fuck this. He should not be able to see a ballot again in his life.

      • mos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m not sure I have a strong opinion for disenfranchising voters, since I believe everyone deserves a right to vote, but there has to be a point at which someone forfeits their own ability to vote? I think cheating the system (and by proxy, other voters) might be a good case for that.

        • Whostosay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Especially with the intent to cause the amount of destruction that has already been carried out that was known when the crime occurred

    • davad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think disenfranchising anyone is immoral and counterproductive to a thriving democracy.

      But someone who attempted to commit voter fraud should be banned from any position of public trust. Ban him from public office, from the election board, etc. Don’t even let him volunteer as a poll worker.

      • ORbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Normally, I agree with that stance. However, in attempting to subvert an election, he stands to disenfranchise hundreds if not thousands of peoples’ votes. You’re more correct, but I hate the idea of someone like this getting the ability to vote for more people like him into power after he’s already done something so egregious.

        Anyway, I don’t disagree with your position, just that this dick weasel is anathema to free and fair elections.

        • Sanctus@anarchist.nexus
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Idk this AG said to shoot ICE Agents so somehow I think this one particular Dem is a little different than the party average. At least on these select few opinions.