November 30, 2009
Last week three of us attend the hearing for Ken Mendez. And it sounds like he is going to trial for voting in 2006. He was on the news last week to let people know about his cause. Over 50 people or organizations have written letters on his behalf but the county attorney is not paying any attention thus far. One of them is attached to this email. All of our Pax Christi group signed it. We hope to be back at the courthouse en masse Monday afternoon when his trial is again addressed. Hopefully it will then be dismissed — this is our aim, God willing.
May 6, 2009 To Whom It May Concern, We, the members of Pax Christi Northwest Minnesota, are writing on behalf of Ken Mendez whose situation came to the attention of our local group recently. This last November Ken, who is on probation after having spent time incarcerated in the Northwest Regional Corrections Center, arrived at the courthouse in Crookston to receive an absentee ballot in order to vote, since he could not be in town on election day. The officials at the courthouse refused to let him have a ballot because of his previous incarceration. He said that he had always voted previously and had never had a problem. After some discussion, Ken was denied the opportunity to vote. Although he was denied this opportunity (although technically he was on probation and not on parole) it may be understood as a simple misunderstanding on the part of one or both of the parties involved. What followed, however, remains incomprehensible. Evidently, his attempt to vote initiated an investigation into his past voting record and it was discovered that he had voted regularly, even while incarcerated at the Correction Center. Statute M.S. 201.014 states, “Any individual who votes who knowingly is not eligible to vote is guilty of a felony.” Because of this he is now being charged for committing a felony when he voted in November of 2006. Ken has served his sentence and has made admirable progress in evolving into a responsible, law-abiding, taxpaying citizen. Those who know him affirm that he is turning his life around and that he has shown that he is capable of being a concerned and conscientious parent for his son. Isn’t rehabilitation the goal of incarceration and probation? Why does Polk County find it necessary to charge him with a previous offense that he didn’t know that he had committed? These are some questions that concern our Pax Christi group and that move us to speak out on Ken’s behalf. It seems evident that if Ken is at fault, then so are some of the officials who permitted him to vote in 2006. Will they be prosecuted or lose their jobs as a result? Why is Ken being accused of attempting to act like a responsible citizen because it seems rather obvious that he did not know he was breaking the law in 2006. If he had, he never would have mentioned his previous voting record. If county officials are excused for their failure to deny Ken the right to vote in 2006 (and they are in a position to know voting rules and regulations) why is Ken being held to being more responsible than they? Ordinarily voting and the desire to vote are considered commendable indicators of good citizenship and as signs of taking on full responsibility as a citizen. Why is Ken being singled out two years after the alleged felony for prosecution? Is it in order to learn more about where procedural flaws exist in the voting process so that improvements can be made? If so, then it seems that any charges against the officials and Ken easily could be waived, because such a crime has no victims, such prosecutions serve no purpose and actions on the part of all concerned may be attributed to honest mistakes that were made unknowingly by citizens of good will. In 2006, according to what we learned, Ken received the ballot in the mail while residing at the Correction Center. No one along the way indicated that he couldn’t vote because they didn’t seem to be aware of this fact. And aren’t registrations to vote checked along the way for their validity and intercepted accordingly? It seems logical that Ken thought he was entitled to vote if he received a ballot in the mail. Then why is this charge being carried forward? It is our hope that a judge will rationally and sensibly dismiss the charge and allow Ken’s rehabilitation to proceed in a positive manner for the good of all concerned. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to following the outcome of this case.
