ACLU of Texas Comment on Court Ruling in Crystal Mason’s Appeal
FORT WORTH, Texas – A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas denied an appeal for Crystal Mason, a Tarrant County resident who was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison for casting a provisional ballot that was not counted in the November 2016 election. The civil rights organizations and criminal defense attorneys representing her will seek to have the full Court of Appeals review her appeal – the next step available in the process.
“These are difficult times for me, but I have faith that with the help of my family and God, right will prevail,” said Crystal Mason, defendant challenging her conviction. “A punishment of five years in jail for doing what I thought was my civic duty, and just as I was getting my family's life together, is not simply unfair, it's a tragedy.”
Mason is represented by the ACLU of Texas, ACLU Voting Rights Project, Texas Civil Rights Project, and her criminal defense attorneys Alison Grinter and Kim Cole. The arguments presented on appeal focused on Mason’s lack of knowledge that the state considered her ineligible to vote, and that the statutes under which she was punished were not clear enough to give any voter in her situation adequate notice that what she did was unlawful.
“We are disappointed with the decision and believe that it is wrong on the law,” said Tommy Buser-Clancy, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Texas who presented the oral argument. “Crystal submitted a provisional ballot that was not counted, she did not vote illegally. We will continue to fight on behalf of Crystal by asking the entire Second Court of Appeals to re-hear this decision. Crystal is an amazing person and citizen who showed unwavering strength throughout this ordeal. We are proud and humbled to stand beside her in Court and will continue to fight for justice for her.”
“This ruling is a severe misinterpretation of the law,” said Alison Grinter, criminal defense attorney for Crystal Mason. “It undercuts efforts to encourage voter turnout through the Help America Vote Act and punishes ordinary voters for attempting to fulfill their civic duty in a way that is at complete odds with our democratic principles. We will continue fighting for Crystal in her appeal and will continue fighting for a system that promotes our right to vote—not one that spreads fear throughout communities through unjustified prosecutions of right minded free people.”
“Voting in Texas is already too confusing and, given the current crises, it's about to get more confusing,” said Beth Stevens, legal director for TCRP Voting Rights Program. “The worst possible message that could be sent right now is that you can go to jail for trying to participate. We continue to stand with Crystal and will keep fighting for her.”
“This is not the end,” said Kim Cole, criminal defense attorney for Crystal Mason. “Our community has stood by Crystal from the beginning and will never lose hope. We will continue to fight with Crystal so that she gets the justice she deserves.”
“Stories like Crystal's innocent act resulting in such an outrageous sentence are a miscarriage of justice,” said Sophia Lin Lakin, deputy director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. “Crystal did exactly what she was permitted to do under federal law. We will continue this fight.”
A copy of the ruling is available here:
Voting Rights
Crystal Mason v. State of Texas
Voting Rights
Crystal Mason v. State of Texas
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Voting Rights
Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?
The Electoral College meets December 17th to certify the results of the 2024 election, but why? The ACLU breaks down if the process is worth keeping. -
New York Supreme CourtDec 2024
Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau CountyNew York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
This case in New York state court centers on the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA) and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL). The NYVRA, like several other state voting rights acts enacted in recent years, expands upon the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial vote dilution. The MHRL prohibits racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering in local-level redistricting. The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the New York Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Steptoe LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of voters of color in Nassau County, New York alleging that a redistricting plan implemented in 2023 for Nassau County’s legislative districts dilutes the voting strength of Black, Latino, and Asian residents and is gerrymandered for partisan advantage in violation of the NYVRA and the MHRL. -
ArizonaNov 2024
Voting Rights
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. RicherAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot “cure” deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Voting Rights
Civil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights ActCivil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights Act
ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. — On November 7, a New York State Supreme Court trial judge issued an opinion striking down the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA). Today, the Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York American Civil Liberties Union, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law issued the following statement in response to the ruling: “The NYVRA is unquestionably constitutional, and protects the freedom to vote for all New Yorkers by helping to ensure voters are not subjected to discrimination when participating in the political process. “The Nov. 7 decision by a state trial judge is deeply flawed and plainly incorrect. We fully expect the decision to be reversed on appeal. It flies in the face of basic legal principles and constitutes a stunning overreach in striking down the entire law, including provisions that are not at issue in the case. “To put it simply, the NYVRA does not discriminate, it bans discrimination – and in doing so protects New Yorkers’ most fundamental right. “New York is stronger when everyone has an equal opportunity to vote.”