Yes. They broke the federal law. It doesn't matter that they mostly cared about the local race. Part of their plan involved casting fake votes for federal candidates, and that's a federal crime. Every citizen has a right to have their vote in a federal election counted fairly, and this scheme harmed that right. Also, the lies the officials told later were allowed as evidence. They weren't used to prove the lies were true; they were used to show that the officials were actively trying to cover up their crime, which helps prove they were guilty of the original cheating plan.

No. We can't be sure they're guilty of the federal crime. The judge at the trial didn't properly tell the jury that, to find them guilty, they had to be sure the officials *specifically planned* to cheat in the *federal* part of the election. The judge's instructions were too general and mixed up the local and federal races. Since the evidence wasn't super strong that everyone in the group agreed to cheat on the federal part, we can't just assume the jury would have found them guilty anyway. The case should be sent back for a new trial with better instructions.

Yes, it is a federal crime. Even though the main goal was to help someone win a local election, the cheating also affected the national election. It doesn't matter if they didn't care about changing the national election results. What's important is that they cheated in an election that included national positions. This hurts everyone's right to have their vote count fairly in national elections. The law says it's wrong to work together to interfere with people's rights in voting, and that includes the right to have votes counted fairly without fake votes mixed in.

No, it shouldn't be a federal crime in this case. The jury wasn't told clearly that they had to decide if the people meant to cheat in the national part of the election. There's not enough proof that everyone involved agreed to cheat in the national election. Also, the law they're using wasn't meant to cover local election cheating unless it involved racial discrimination. The case should be tried again with clearer instructions for the jury.

Yes. A conspiracy that includes casting false votes for federal candidates violates 18 U.S.C. § 241, regardless of whether the conspirators' primary motive was to influence a local race. The Court first addressed an evidentiary issue, holding that the perjured testimony from the later election contest was not hearsay. It was not offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted, but rather to prove the statements were made, which served as a foundation for evidence showing they were false. As non-hearsay, this testimony was admissible as an act of concealment relevant to proving the motive of the original conspiracy. On the merits, the Court found sufficient evidence that petitioners conspired with the specific intent to have false votes cast for federal officers. It reasoned that a single conspiracy may have several purposes; if one of them is the violation of a federal law, the entire conspiracy is unlawful under federal law. The specific intent required by § 241 is not the intent to change the outcome of a federal election, but rather the intent to cast false votes, thereby injuring the right of all voters to have their ballots counted fairly and without dilution.

No. The convictions should not be affirmed because the jury was never properly instructed to find that the petitioners had the specific intent to cast fraudulent votes in the federal election. The dissent argued that the trial court's jury instructions were erroneous because they did not distinguish between the state and federal elections, allowing the jury to convict without finding a specific intent to interfere with the federal electoral process. This error was not harmless, as the evidence of intent regarding the federal election was not conclusive for all petitioners. Furthermore, the dissent contended that the Court should have addressed the broader statutory question, arguing that the legislative history of § 241 indicates Congress did not intend for it to reach local election fraud absent an element of racial discrimination.

Yes. The evidence supports the verdict that each of the petitioners engaged in the conspiracy with the intent of having false votes cast for federal officers. The conspiracy to cast fraudulent votes, even if primarily aimed at affecting state election results, falls under federal jurisdiction when it also encompasses federal elections, as per 18 U.S.C. § 241. The Court affirms the convictions because the evidence amply supports the jury's conclusion that each petitioner knowingly participated in a conspiracy which contemplated the casting of false votes for all offices at issue in the election, including federal offices. The Court emphasizes that a single conspiracy may have several purposes, and if one of them - whether primary or secondary - is the violation of a federal law, the conspiracy is unlawful under federal law. The specific intent required under § 241 is not the intent to change the outcome of a federal election, but rather the intent to have false votes cast and thereby to injure the right of all voters in a federal election to express their choice of a candidate and to have their expressions of choice given full value and effect, without being diluted or distorted by the casting of fraudulent ballots.

No, because the jury was not required to find that the petitioners had the specific intent to affect federal elections, which is necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 241. The majority's affirmation of the convictions on the assumption that such intent existed is flawed. The jury instructions did not specifically require a finding of intent to cast false votes in the federal election contests. The evidence does not conclusively show that all petitioners agreed to cast fraudulent votes for federal candidates. Additionally, § 241 should not extend to state election frauds where there is no evidence of racial discrimination. The legislative history of § 241 indicates that Congress did not intend to reach local election malfeasance where there was no evidence of racial bias. The dissent argues that the case should be remanded for a new trial with proper jury instructions.

Anderson v. United States

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot