edit: I have changed my title to match the new NYTimes headline. Sorry about the all caps, I guess they are really excited about this lol
Also shoutout to @SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone who shared a gift article link in the comments. I hope you don’t mind but I kinda stole it and updated the post
First time in history a candidate running for president can’t legally vote for themselves?
I bet some female ran prior to female suffrage.
kagis
Yeah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Woodhull
Victoria Claflin Woodhull (born Victoria California Claflin; September 23, 1838 – June 9, 1927), later Victoria Woodhull Martin, was an American leader of the women’s suffrage movement who ran for president of the United States in the 1872 election. While many historians and authors agree that Woodhull was the first woman to run for the presidency,[2] some disagree with classifying it as a true candidacy because she was younger than the constitutionally mandated age of 35. (Woodhull’s 35th birthday was in September 1873, six months after the March inauguration.)
An activist for women’s rights and labor reforms, Woodhull was also an advocate of “free love”, by which she meant the freedom to marry, divorce and bear children without social restriction or government interference.[3] “They cannot roll back the rising tide of reform,” she often said. “The world moves.”[4]
Woodhull twice went from rags to riches, her first fortune being made on the road as a magnetic healer[5] before she joined the spiritualist movement in the 1870s.[6] Authorship of many of her articles is disputed (many of her speeches on these topics were collaborations between Woodhull, her backers, and her second husband, Colonel James Blood[7]). Together with her sister, Tennessee Claflin, she was the first woman to operate a brokerage firm on Wall Street,[8] making a second, and more reputable fortune.[9] They were among the first women to found a newspaper in the United States, Woodhull & Claflin’s Weekly, which began publication in 1870.[10]
Woodhull was politically active in the early 1870s when she was nominated as the first woman candidate for the United States presidency.[8] Woodhull was the candidate in 1872 from the Equal Rights Party, supporting women’s suffrage and equal rights; her running mate (unbeknownst to him) was abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass. Her campaign inspired at least one other woman – apart from her sister – to run for Congress.[8] A check on her activities occurred when she was arrested on obscenity charges a few days before the election. Her paper had published an account of the alleged adulterous affair between the prominent minister Henry Ward Beecher and Elizabeth Richards Tilton which had rather more detail than was considered proper at the time. However, it all added to the sensational coverage of her candidacy.[11]
Heh, and she was in trouble with the law in the runup to the election like Trump, too.
some female
you mean a woman?
I suppose the only questions there are whether or not her state allowed women to vote for president, and whether or not a candidate who cannot legally hold the office counts (since she was under 35). Because it wasn’t just blanket illegal for women to vote prior to the 19th Amendment, it was up to the individual states and like anything up to the individual states it was all over the place depending on which state we’re talking about. For example, New Jersey allowed anyone who had the equivalent of 50 British pounds of wealth to vote regardless of sex (and there are recorded examples of women voting there) - at least until they embraced Jacksonian democracy and removed the wealth requirement and added a sex one. By the time the 19th Amendment passed, women could vote in at least some elections in most states.
I thought of that, but the first state to do so was well after her run.
https://www.history.com/news/the-state-where-women-voted-long-before-the-19th-amendment
When Wyoming sought statehood two decades after its historic vote, the territory’s citizens approved a constitution that maintained the right of women to vote. When Congress threatened to keep Wyoming out of the Union if it didn’t rescind the provision, the territory refused to budge. “We will remain out of the Union one hundred years rather than come in without the women,” the territorial legislature declared in a telegram to congressional leaders. Congress relented, and Wyoming became the first state to grant women the right to vote when it became the country’s 44th state in 1890.
The West continued to be the country’s most progressive region on full women’s suffrage. Colorado approved it in 1893, and Idaho did the same three years later. Congress had disenfranchised women along with outlawing polygamy in Utah in 1887, but women regained the right to vote when the territory became a state in 1896. After 1910, they were joined by Washington, California, Arizona, Kansas, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota and the territory of Alaska. (Even before the passage of the 19th Amendment, Montana elected a woman, Jeannette Rankin, to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1916.) According to the National Constitution Center, by 1919 there were 15 states in which women had full voting rights, and only two of them were east of the Mississippi River. The dozen states that restricted women from casting ballots in any election were primarily in the South and the East.
Wyoming wasn’t the first state to allow women to vote for President. At the very least women could vote in New Jersey as early as 1790, presuming they had the equivalent of 50 British pounds of wealth (because the wealth requirement was the only requirement). Women later lost the right to vote in New Jersey when New Jersey embraced Jacksonian democracy and extended the right to vote to all white men of age, regardless of wealth.
But again, women’s right to vote was a state issue prior to the 19th Amendment and as such it was kinda all over the place with some states allowing women to vote but only in some elections (often different rules for municipal, county, state and federal elections).
Sorry but what is “kagis”? I tried looking it up and found nothing.
“Searches using Kagi.” Like “googles” for “searches using Google”.
The search gone is called “Kagi”, so the action of using it was “kagis”
Except she was acquitted.
They passed a constitutional amendment in Florida to let felons vote, a couple years ago. The legislature tried to backpeddle it as much as they could in order to prevent black people from voting, but the main mechanism is forcing the felons to pay a bunch of money, which isn’t a problem for Trump.
Florida also defers to the voting rights in the state where the judgment happened for convictions outside of Florida. And New York lets felons vote. Therefore, Trump can vote in Florida under Florida election law.
The legislature tried to backpeddle it as much as they could in order to prevent black people from voting, but the main mechanism is forcing the felons to pay a bunch of money, which isn’t a problem for Trump.
To be exact, the “backpedaling” was that if the courts assigned you fines and prison time you had to complete both before you had “completed your sentence” and thus could vote.
There may be a component that felons have to have finished their sentence which could exclude Trump.
As long as he’s not incarcerated he can vote in NY
He’s a Florida resident though.
And Florida defers to the state where the conviction occurred. So Florida says he can vote in Florida if he can vote in NY.
Now the judge who Trump has been royally pissing off the whole time gets to sentence him. If your justice boner lasts for more than 4 hours, please consult a doctor.
FYI: Sentencing is set for July 11 at 10 a.m.
“Yeah, it’s been this way for about a month now.”
So TIL my parents will be voting for a convicted felon in November 🤦♀️
Oh hey there sibling! We’ve got the same parents! And in-laws!
The GOP could have gotten off this wild ride at so many points in the last 8 years, yet here we are. A republican presidential nominee who has been convicted of felonies.
Edit: And with Biden’s poll numbers they could have run literally anybody else and won.
Today is a very good day.
Now on the downside, convicted felons are still legally allowed to run for office. Not being able to vote for himself is delicious schadenfreude, but this doesn’t suddenly save democracy. However, I would expect Biden’s administration will push this hard, and I don’t think undecided voters want a felon in the White House.
As other have said, Banning felons from voting is a tool that can be used by oppressors to block their political rivals from standing against them.
Which ironically is something the Republicans are probably wanting to do at some point in the future.
I would like to formally and publicly apologize to Juror #2 for the aspersions I had cast upon his character. I am sorry for doubting you and your motives, Juror #2.
Same. But good on them for seeing the truth.
There are several countries that won’t approve your visa if you are convicted felon.
It’s an indication that we’re not “sending our best”
And republicans, the “Law and Order” party, will still vote for this man.
Fraud just has a nicer ring to it imo
So… is there a minimum sentence here? If so, what is it?
IANAL, but If I’m understanding this correctly, because he was found guilty of class E felonies, there is technically a minimum of 1 year in prison, but if the court:
is of the opinion that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary but that it would be unduly harsh to impose an indeterminate or determinate sentence, the court may impose a definite sentence of imprisonment and fix a term of one year or less.
Which seems like an alternative minimum. It seems like there will be additional evaluations as part of sentencing, which may or may not be postponed by appeals. He may get up to 4 years per count (which I’m assuming would be concurrent), maybe 1, maybe less if the court finds that it would be harsh to do so.
Even 1 would do so much to restore my faith in…so much.
But the dude is 10000% getting probation.
The system isn’t quite designed to do what many of us think it should do, but at times, it can get close.
Unfortunately, there’s a good chance you’re right, and this isn’t one of those times.
I hope I’m wrong! I really do.
Judge set the sentencing hearing for July 11, so it’ll be a bit before we know the final details.
Right, but we should know just based on what laws he was found guilty of violating what the minimum sentences for violating them are (if there are minimums).
Probation/ community service up to 4 years per count
Edit: 4 years of jail, not community service
deleted by creator
Good question. All I know is sentencing is set for July 11 at 10 a.m.
🤏🖐️👌 I tell ya folks we have the most perfect verdicts!!! Beautiful verdicts! 🖐️👌
Get fucked loser, CONVICTED FELON DONALD J TRUMP!!!
a new meaning to rule 34
While I’m extremely happy, I’m exhausted and lost all faith that he will be held accountble for anything.
He will appeal on others money and then somehow all the republicans in there twisted hate of their fellow Americans will somehow get him elected and then he will wipe all punishments for him and all his other insurrectionists. Start a civil war, destroy any progress on saving the planet start ww3 or nuclear war…
I used to be optimistic now I’m depressed as the ruling class burns us all to the ground
Hey exhausted lemming! I get you. I really do. But try and look at it this way. Two years ago I would have said he would never be charged with a crime. A year ago I would have said he’d never see a court room. And yesterday, I was convinced that one MAGA in the jury would be enough to get a hung jury. But here we are. So I’ll be very surprised if Trump sees a single day in jail, but I’ve gone from pessimistic depression to cautious optimism. I hope you get some relief, too.
