Court Opinion

ID: 9475701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:36:05.758843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:53.085813
License: Public Domain

WIDENER, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur in part, but respectfully dissent in part from the majority’s opinion.
I
I concur in the result reached by the majority as to counts 23, 24 and 25 because I do not believe the acts charged fall within the statute, 18 U.S.C. § 242.
II
I would ordinarily concur in the opinion of the majority applying United States v. Bathgate, 246 U.S. 220, 38 S.Ct. 269, 62 L.Ed. 676 (1918) because only the Supreme Court can overrule its own precedents. *1050Thurston Motor Lines v. Jordon K. Rand, Ltd., 460 U.S. 533, 535, 103 S.Ct. 1343, 1344, 75 L.Ed.2d 260 (1983). No other rule is workable in the orderly administration of justice.
In this case, however, I believe that the law has evolved since Bathgate, so that, while Bathgate may not have been overruled, sub silentio, its holding has been made necessarily less restrictive by later Supreme Court action. In Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 94 S.Ct. 2253, 41 L.Ed.2d 20 (1974), the Supreme Court has more recently decided that a constitutional right exists to a honest election count. The Court stated: “[ejvery voter ... whether he votes for a candidate with little chance of winning or for one with little chance of losing, has a right under the Constitution to have his vote fairly counted, without its being distorted by fraudulently cast votes. And whatever their motive, those who conspire to cast false votes in an election for federal office conspire to injure that right within the meaning of § 241.” Anderson at 227, 94 S.Ct. at 2263-64.
I recognize that Anderson was a ballot box stuffing case and not a bribery case as here. The constitutional right, nevertheless, recognized by the Supreme Court in Anderson was that there was the right to an honest vote count. The indictment in the case at hand charged that the defendants conspired to violate that same constitutional right. The constitutional right to an honest count fits within the language of § 241, a “right $y(3)27 secured ... by the Constitution of the United States.” Thus, I would allow that part of the prosecution to proceed.1

. In Anderson, the challenged election was the Democratic primary election for selection of candidates for the United States Senate, United States House of Representatives, and state and local offices. False votes were cast in the local and Senate and House races. The case before us involves three elections, a federal primary election, a state primary election, and a general election for federal offices. No attempt is made in the indictment to allocate the fraud between the various elections. In affirming the opinion in Anderson, the Supreme Court based its opinion upon the fact that the fraud that was the subject of the conspiracy did not distinguish in its object between the state, local and federal elections. The Court expressed no opinion of whether a conspiracy to cast false votes in a state or local election fit within 18 U.S.C. § 241. Anderson at 228, 94 S.Ct. at 2264. This court, however, expressly held in Anderson that such a conspiracy does fall within the terms of § 241. United States v. Anderson, 481 F.2d 685, 699 (4th Cir.1973).