## Facts

- Susan B. Anthony voted in the November 1872 federal election for a representative in Congress in Rochester, New York.
- New York law limited voting for the most numerous branch of the state legislature to males, and that qualification governed electors for the U.S. House of Representatives.
- Anthony met all voter qualifications except sex; she was not a male.
- The United States indicted Anthony under § 19 of the Enforcement Act of 1870 for “knowingly” voting in a federal election “without having a lawful right to vote.”
- Anthony asserted that the Fourteenth Amendment made New York’s male-only voting rule invalid and that she acted in good faith believing she had a lawful right to vote.
- At trial, the court withdrew the case from the jury, directed a verdict of guilty, and declined to have the jury polled.
- Anthony moved for a new trial, challenging the directed verdict and the rejection of her constitutional and good-faith defenses.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment conferred a federal constitutional right for women to vote, invalidating New York’s male-only suffrage rule.
2. Whether the right to vote is a privilege or immunity of United States citizenship protected against state abridgment.
3. Whether a good-faith belief in a legal right to vote negates the “knowingly” element of § 19.
4. Whether directing a guilty verdict and removing all questions from the jury violated the right to trial by jury.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion for a new trial and left the guilty verdict in place.
- The court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not invalidate New York’s restriction of suffrage to males and did not confer women’s suffrage.
- The court held that voting rights arose under state law, subject only to explicit federal constitutional limits (such as the Fifteenth Amendment’s race-based restriction).
- The court held that Anthony’s asserted good-faith legal belief did not excuse unlawful voting under a statute requiring that the act be done “knowingly.”
- The court held that directing a verdict of guilty was proper where the facts constituting the offense were undisputed, and that submitting no questions to the jury did not violate the jury-trial right.

## Legal Principles

- The Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause does not make suffrage a privilege or immunity of national citizenship.
- Qualifications for voting for members of the U.S. House follow the qualifications for the most numerous branch of the state legislature, unless the Constitution otherwise restricts the state.
- Under a “knowingly” unlawful voting statute, a defendant’s mistaken view of constitutional law does not negate criminal liability when the defendant knows the operative facts and votes despite lacking a lawful state entitlement.
- A court may direct a verdict of guilty in a criminal case when the material facts establishing guilt are conceded or uncontradicted, leaving only questions of law.

## Conclusion

The court sustained Susan B. Anthony’s conviction for unlawful voting, ruling that women’s suffrage was not secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, that mistake of law was not a defense to “knowingly” voting without lawful right, and that a directed guilty verdict was permissible where the relevant facts were undisputed.


United States v. Anthony, 24 F. Cas. 829 (C.C.N.D.N.Y. 1873)