SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
texas civil rights project
In 'Major Victory for Voting Rights,' Texas Court Overturns Crystal Mason's Conviction
"I was thrown into this fight for voting rights and will keep swinging to ensure no one else has to face what I've endured for over six years," Mason said following her acquittal.
Mar 29, 2024
Crystal Mason, the Texas woman sentenced in 2018 to five years in prison for casting an illegal ballot in the 2016 election, was cleared Thursday by a state appeals court, which found no evidence that she knew she was ineligible to vote.
The 2nd Court of Appeals in Fort Worth formally acquitted Mason, a grandmother and mother of three who was on supervised release for felony tax fraud when she filled out a provisional ballot that was never counted in the 2016 presidential election. Her prosecution was based on an affidavit she signed before voting that required her to swear that she had "completed all my punishment including any term of incarceration, parole, supervision, period of probation, or I have been pardoned."
Mason's parole supervisor testified at her trial that no one from the office informed her that she was ineligible to vote.
"Crystal Mason was unfairly targeted because of bad faith actors in this state who are determined to use every tool at their disposal to attempt to intimidate voters, especially Black and Brown voters."
The court's ruling states that prosecutors' primary evidence "was that Mason read the words on the affidavit, but even if she had read them, they are not sufficient—even in the context of the rest of the evidence in this case—to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she actually knew that being on supervised release after having served her entire federal sentence of incarceration made her ineligible to vote by casting a provisional ballot when she did so."
Mason contended that she did not carefully read the affidavit and that she would never have risked her freedom by knowingly casting an illegal ballot.
"I am overjoyed to see my faith rewarded today," Mason said Thursday in a statement published by the ACLU. "I was thrown into this fight for voting rights and will keep swinging to ensure no one else has to face what I've endured for over six years, a political ploy where minority voting rights are under attack."
"I've cried and prayed every night for over six years straight that I would remain a free Black woman," Mason added. "I thank everyone whose dedication and support carried me through this time and look forward to celebrating this moment with my family and friends."
Christina Beeler, voting rights attorney at the Texas Civil Rights Project, said that "this ruling gives us hope not just for Ms. Mason, but for the broader fight for voting rights in Texas."
"Crystal Mason was unfairly targeted because of bad faith actors in this state who are determined to use every tool at their disposal to attempt to intimidate voters, especially Black and Brown voters, but that approach will not work here in Texas," she continued.
"We are proud to have assisted in securing Ms. Mason's freedom, and we are proud of Ms. Mason—instead of intimidating Ms. Mason through her unlawful prosecution, the state has empowered Ms. Mason to continue fighting for voting rights alongside other advocates," Beeler added.
Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said: "Crystal Mason has bravely fought this grave injustice for years now. No one should be forced to endure what she has, and Crystal's victory today is an inspiration and cause for celebration."
Mason's case attracted international attention and widespread condemnation, with voting rights defenders comparing her conviction and sentencing to white offenders who received more lenient punishments.
For example, Russ Casey, a justice of the peace in the same county where Mason was convicted, admitted to submitting fake signatures on documents required to secure a spot on a primary ballot. Initially sentenced to two years behind bars, Casey had his punishment reduced to five years' probation. He also resigned from his job.
On Wednesday, a Georgia judge ruled that Brian Pritchard—a vice-chair of the state Republican Party, right-wing talk show host, and prominent 2020 election denier—voted illegally nine times from 2008-10 while he was on probation for felony check forging. Pritchard will not serve any prison time; instead he was fined $5,000 and will receive a public reprimand from the State Election Board.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Supreme Court Lets Texas Enforce 'Unconstitutional and Extreme' Border Law
"Allowing this law to be implemented as the case makes its way through the legal process needlessly puts people's lives at risk," said one campaigner. "We remain committed to the fight to permanently overturn S.B. 4."
Mar 19, 2024
Update:
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday night issued a decision that put the Texas law back on hold, blocking once again enactment of legislation that would allow local and state law enforcement to detain or deport migrants believed to have crossed the border illegally.
Earlier:
Rights advocates on Tuesday blasted the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court for allowing Texas to enforce Senate Bill 4, a contested law empowering local and state authorities to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants.
"Today's decision is disappointing and threatens the integrity of our nation's immigration laws and bedrock principles of due process," said Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "But it is only preliminary and turned on the specific posture of the case. We'll continue to fight against S.B. 4 until it is struck down once and for all."
After Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed the bill in December, the national and state ACLU joined Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) in filing a lawsuit on behalf of American Gateways, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and El Paso County. The U.S. Department of Justice has also argued that "it is flatly inconsistent with federal law in all its applications, and it is therefore preempted on its face."
U.S. District Judge David Ezra last month issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law from taking effect while it is challenged on constitutional grounds. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay, which the justices left in place on Tuesday.
In a concurring opinion that Law Dork's Chris Geidner called "embarrassingly absurd," Justice Amy Coney Barrett—joined by fellow right-winger Brett Kavanaugh—highlighted that this was just a stay decision and they weren't yet weighing in on the merits.
The high court's three liberal members—Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor rejected—dissented. Kagan briefly explained why she would not have allowed S.B. 4 to take effect while Sotomayor, joined by Jackon, penned a lengthier dissent warning that the majority decision "invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement."
Those behind the ongoing legal battle against S.B. 4 issued similar warnings on Tuesday. Adriana Piñon, legal director at the ACLU of Texas, declared that "the implementation of this unconstitutional and extreme anti-immigrant law will likely be disastrous for both Texans and our legal system."
Tami Goodlette, director of TCRP's Beyond Borders Program, said that "allowing this law to be implemented as the case makes its way through the legal process needlessly puts people's lives at risk. Everyone, no matter if you have called Texas home for decades or just got here yesterday, deserves to feel safe and have the basic right of due process."
"We remain committed to the fight to permanently overturn S.B. 4 to show the nation that no state has the power to overtake federal immigration authority," she pledged.
The law's other challengers also expressed their disappointment and stressed that they remain determined to defeat S.B. 4.
"While today's Supreme Court decision is another setback for immigrants and refugees, we will continue to advocate for civil rights and dignity for people fleeing persecution," said American Gateways co-executive director Rebecca Lightsey. "We all recognize that our current immigration system is broken. It's past time to take a look at realistic solutions that will help not only those coming and seeking protection, but also the communities that are receiving them."
Jennifer Babaie, director of advocacy and legal services Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, was also undeterred, saying that "make no mistake, this decision does not change our commitment to this fight."
"Everyone, regardless of race or immigration status, has the freedom to move and the freedom to thrive," Babaie added. "We will continue to use every tool at our disposal to ensure this anti-immigrant and unconstitutional law is struck down for good, and Texans are protected from its inherent discrimination."
Keep ReadingShow Less
ACLU Leads Legal Challenge to 'Dangerous' Texas Immigration Law
S.B. 4 "will have a devastating impact on people seeking safety at our borders and Texans throughout the state," said one advocate.
Dec 19, 2023
Vowing to stop Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott from enforcing an anti-immigration law that "overrides bedrock constitutional principles" and that has already prompted travel advisories for people planning to visit the Lone Star State, the ACLU led civil rights groups on Tuesday in suing to block Senate Bill 4.
The national group led the ACLU of Texas and the Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) in challenging the law a day after Abbott signed it, permitting local and state law enforcement officers to arrest and detain people who they suspect of being undocumented immigrants.
Under the law, which is set to go into effect in March unless courts block it, state judges would also be empowered to order a person's deportation even if they were eligible to seek asylum or other protections under federal law.
Texas judges, said the ACLU, "are not trained in immigration law and have no proper authority to enforce it"—just one of the ways in which S.B. 4 is unconstitutional, according to the groups.
"Texas," said the ACLU as it announced the lawsuit, "we'll see you in court."
Representing the Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, American Gateways, and the County of El Paso, Texas, the legal groups argued in their complaint that S.B. 4 violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes that federal laws—such as the right to seek asylum and the right to due process of law—take precedence over measures passed by states.
"We have sued to block Senate Bill 4 because it will have a devastating impact on people seeking safety at our borders and Texans throughout the state," said Rochelle Garza, president of the TCRP. "This law blatantly disregards people's right to due process and will allow Texas law enforcement to funnel family, friends, and loved ones into the deportation pipeline. S.B. 4 is unconstitutional—Texas does not have the power to implement its own immigration laws. We will not let this stand."
S.B. 4 has also led Mexican President Andres Manuel López Obrador to prepare a legal challenge through his country's foreign ministry, and several federal lawmakers from Texas and in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to call on U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to block the law.
"S.B. 4 is dangerous for the people of Texas and interferes with the federal government's exclusive authority over immigration and foreign affairs," wrote the lawmakers, including U.S. Reps. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Nanette Diaz Barragán (D-Calif.), and Al Green (D-Texas). "S.B. 4 is an unlawful attempt to engage in federal immigration enforcement. This law will also interfere with federal efforts to create a safe, humane, and orderly system at the border."
The ACLU pointed out that the law could arbitrarily subject thousands of people of color to Texas' state prison system, "which is already rife with civil rights abuses."
In addition to being unconstitutional, said Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, S.B. 4 is "dangerously prone to error, and will disproportionately harm Black and Brown people regardless of their immigration status."
"We're using every tool at our disposal, including litigation, to stop this egregious law from going into effect," said Balakrishnan.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular