Humanities desk
< October 2	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 3

Voting rights for tax evaders

I understand that people in prison for felonies aren't allowed to vote while incarcerated, and in some states they can't vote even after being released. Murderers, embezzlers, drug dealers, all sorts of felons, we have the best felons.

My question: does the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution mean there is an exception to the above for tax evaders, at least for federal offices? It says:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

I'm wondering if this has ever come up. I'm not seeking legal advice. It's just that there is a guy currently in the news who has been accused by some of tax evasion, and who is running for president. Eugene Debs was able to run for president while imprisoned in 1920 so maybe the current guy can do something similar, conditional on the accusations being true. If there aren't other charges and that means he can still vote for himself, that might make a difference. Thanks. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:86EA (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a law-review article on the topic. The issue has never come up in court (at least as of 2007, and I haven't been able to find any more recent cases), but the author argues that tax evasion should be treated the same as any other felony. The question is also discussed briefly at the end of this article, with that author reaching a similar conclusion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, thanks! I'm glad someone else thought of it and wrote an article. The situation sounds about like what I guessed though: it hasn't been tested in court, and it could probably go either way. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:86EA (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential question from an EU resident:
Does this (ie, no right to participate in elections) apply solely to the active right to vote (eg prisoner X can not vote in an presidential election) or does it apply to the passive vote (eg prisoner A can not be elected POTUS)?
The US constitution seems to contain just 3 requirements, ie age ≥ 35a, natural born citizen and residency ≥ 14a. In theory, an elderly Incitatus may not be excluded from galopping from prison into the White House.

--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's generally assumed that the constitutional eligibility criteria are exhaustive, in the sense that no mere statute can modify them, neither to make them more stringent nor more lenient. Eugene Debs was never going to win, but if he had he could presumably have taken office. Some of the criteria might be understood from common sense rather than explicitly laid out (a citizen must be a natural human person, for example, not a horse) but they still can't be affected by statutes such as the ones that disfranchise felons. --Trovatore (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding immunities and the rights of felons to hold/run for office… it helps to know historical precedent. See John Wilkes (and follow the links). Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consider two cases: a tax evader who is convicted of a felony, and one who plea bargains the charge to something less than a felony. In the first case, voting rights may be suspended, but not in the latter. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cockatoo, see also Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Disqualification_from_office_for_insurrection_or_rebellion. It says people who participated in insurrections against the US aren't eligible for office. It was passed after the Civil War, for the purpose of stopping former Confederates from returning to office after losing the war. Right now there is a movement (influential article) to kick Trump off the ballot in the 2024 election, on the theory that the amendment makes him ineligible because of the January 6 riot. According to the proponents, a majority of US voters support making Trump ineligible. Silly me, I had thought such a majority could prevent Trump's potential re-election by just voting for his opponent in the usual way. I guess we will see. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:86EA (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the Electoral College, the latter is not so simple. Keep in mind, he came in a pretty distant second in the popular vote in 2016, but still became president. - Jmabel | Talk 03:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing you have to keep in mind is that not everyone who would like Trump to be ineligible actually wants Biden to win. Much of this talk of ineligibility is actually coming from conservatives. --Trovatore (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added regarding serving in office from prison: William Musto, a New Jersey politician sent to prison for corruption, actually ran and got elected for a local office while locked up. But, a court stopped him from taking office. "Despite his legal troubles, Musto still managed to maintain his adoration from Union City and continued his 1982 reelection campaign for the city commission, winning the election against Menendez on May 11, 1982, the day after his sentencing. The courts forced him from office, and his wife, Rhyta, won her husband's seat in a special election.[1][6]". Added (OMG): Musto is legendary, but I didn't know til just now that his opponent in that election was Robert Menendez, another big crook who was just indicted after something like $480,000 in bribe money was found in his closet (Bob_Menendez#2023_indictment). Wow. Look out Florida Man, New Jersey is catching up ;). 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:86EA (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Menendez has not been convicted of anything, so calling him a crook is a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1917 election result

I'm revisiting the voting tally for the 1917 Kiev City Duma election, having encountered a scan of the 27 July 1917 copy of Kievlyanin here: https://issuu.com/sputnikipogrom/docs/178?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=sputnikipogrom.com (article title «Результаты выборов в Киевскую городскую думу») However, is the vote tally for List 1, 64,207 or 61,207? I can't read it well. -- Soman (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't read a word of Cyrillic, but if you are referring to page 2, column 2, bottom quarter I'm pretty certain that it is 64,207. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]