Crystal Mason's election fraud case is a judicial farce in Texas

They say that ignorance is no excuse. But blind justice is not necessarily justice either.

This is the case of Crystal Mason, a Tarrant County woman convicted of voter fraud. Mason was sentenced to five years in prison in 2018 for submitting a provisional ballot two years earlier while she was still in prison on a voter fraud charge in federal court.

She won a temporary legal victory when a Fort Worth appeals court overturned her conviction in March on the grounds that state law requires prosecutors to prove someone intended to commit voter fraud.

But Mason's case isn't over yet. The Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest criminal court, recently agreed to hear an appeal from Tarrant County District Attorney Phil Sorrells. His office claims Mason was released on parole, had not yet served her sentence, and signed a preliminary affidavit indicating she was ineligible to vote.

But this is where the law and common sense diverge. Mason insisted that she did not know she was ineligible to vote. In addition, the provisional ballot she cast was not counted, and no one could prove that Mason knew she was breaking a rule.

Yet this case has now dragged on for seven years, and we believe Mason has become a political hostage facing unimaginably severe consequences in a case that rarely goes to trial.

Why? Because leading Republicans in Texas are determined to prove that voter fraud is a widespread problem that compromises our elections.

There is no evidence whatsoever that this is true, nor does Mason's case even begin to suggest that it is.

At best, Mason's case shows that the system worked. She was not allowed to cast a regular vote. She was offered a provisional ballot, but it was marked and never counted.

At issue is her awareness of her right to vote and her intent to commit a crime. The state has never been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knowingly and intentionally voted illegally.

If we believed that an important legal principle was being defended, or that there was a real risk of voter fraud in our elections, or that Mason had nefariously attempted to undermine an election, we would demand further judicial review.

But what principle is at stake? The system worked. What example is being given here? A woman with limited legal knowledge tried to vote and failed.

There is something at stake here, but it is not about preventing voter fraud. It is about using the fear of voter fraud as a path to power.

Attorney General Ken Paxton, a leading champion of the election fraud story, was able to ensure that his preferred candidates won the Republican primary for the Court of Criminal Appeals.

He has targeted experienced, conservative Republican judges because they do not support his attempt to expand his own powers. Paxton wants to be able to use his office to unilaterally prosecute election fraud. The court had ruled by 8 to 1 that the separation of powers clause of the Texas Constitution prohibits such an expansion.

Paxton's response was not to accept the letter of the law, as a true conservative would. Instead, he sought to overthrow judges who refused to accept his power grab. After the ruling, he tweeted that the appeals court's “shameful decision means local prosecutors with radical liberal views have sole authority to prosecute voter fraud in Texas – which they will never do.”

Given the influence we believe Paxton currently has on the nation's highest criminal appeals court, we fear Mason could become a political casualty. Her freedom is at stake, as is the integrity and independence of our courts.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Fort Worth correctly ruled that Mason's conviction should be overturned based on the clear language of the law and the facts of the case. The appeals court could have let the lower court's ruling stand and overturned Mason's conviction. By deciding to take the case, the court has at least signaled that some of its judges believe a review is necessary. The court had previously overturned the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and ordered a new review based on election law changes made by the legislature in 2021. Those changes actually softened the rules on provisional ballots in response to Mason's case.

The slow, winding path through the courts is a travesty. Prosecutions in election fraud cases should provide more direct evidence of intent and consequences than was shown in this case.

In this heated political atmosphere, one cannot ignore the political machinations behind this. It seems to us that naked politicians are perverting the course of justice and seeking a prosecution that has all the hallmarks of an honest mistake.

For Mason's sake and for all of our sakes, this madness must end.

We welcome your opinion in a letter to the editor. Read the guidelines and Send your letter hereIf you have any problems with the form, you can send it by email to the following address: [email protected]