It is about to get ugly.  Proponent groups and opposition groups for the proposed amendment are raising large sums to buy expensive media time and produce ads. Some of those productions can be counted on to mislead people by contorting the facts.  Some are there just to pitch voting as a way for voters to express their  prebaked biases or prejudices about politics and the legal system.

As you know, LWVJoCo concurs with  LWVK’s stand to Vote No on the proposed constitutional amendment, and our Voting Information and Communications committees are doing their jobs to get out information and the vote.  But what can individual members do on our own, with limited available money and time. Which brings me to this month’s history moment.

We know Susan B. Anthony is  a lodestar on the road to women’s suffrage. We  often hear how “Aunt Susan” went to jail and then to federal prison for her advocacy, after she deliberately  cast an illegal vote in  Rochester, New York.  It’s a good basic story about bravery.  But it’s not accurate.  Why care?  In this case, the story speaks  to our own  August primary concerns.  

In 1872  it was illegal for New York women to vote, but Susan had a plan.  She would register, be denied a ballot, and then file a federal civil case alleging that denying the ballot violated her Fourteenth Amendment civil rights.  A good plan that one was;  but it failed.  She and 14 other women registered for the next election, signed the oath that they were qualified, voted,  and  were arrested.  Susan had voted for President Grant. She was charged with violating the federal Enforcement Act of 1870, which made it a new federal crime to vote in a federal election if unqualified under state law. The others posted bail and avoided further prosecution. Susan was indicted and refused to post bail, but she was never jailed.  Why not? Likely because she  was known for her suffrage advocacy and her arrest had hit  the national papers. 

Susan was to be tried  in the U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of New York.  A newly-appointed Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court,  Ward Hunt, was assigned to supervise that circuit.  He had been a politician and a New York appellate judge.  Normally, two trial judges sat together on a federal criminal trial, but Justice Hunt decided that his first appearance as a trial judge would be sitting alone on this case. The upcoming trial was devoured by the national press.  It was about to become a publicist’s dream.  Susan and her attorneys took full advantage of the situation while she was awaiting trial.  Pamphlets in support of her and suffrage  were drafted and distributed.  She wrote and lectured.  She even went on a pretrial New York speaking tour, encouraging other women to break the law and vote.

At trial, Susan demanded to testify as a witness on her own behalf.  Justice Hunt refused to allow it. After two days of trial, he delivered a written opinion finding there were no disputed facts, and that there was no right to a jury trial without disputed facts.  He directed the jury to enter a guilty verdict and asked Susan if she had anything to say.  She gave what is often described as the most famous speech in the history of the suffrage movement and simply ignored the judge’s orders for her to stop talking and sit down.  Justice Hunt sentenced Susan to pay a fine of $100.00.  She responded: “I shall never pay a dollar of your unjust penalty.”

 Failure to  pay a criminal fine could cause imprisonment until she paid it. She immediately demanded that Justice Hunt take her into custody for failing to pay the fine.  Why?  He declined.  Why?

At that time there were only two levels of federal courts:  the district and circuit trial courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.  The appellate court system had not yet been established.  Appeals went directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Direct  appeals from criminal verdicts were not allowed, but Susan and the judge both knew that an incarcerated person could directly petition the Supreme Court for a “writ of habeas corpus”.  Such a writ would cause officials to “bring out the body” to the Court for a hearing to contest the validity of her conviction.  Susan had good reason to want to be locked up.  Justice Hunt had good reason to refuse.  He sent a Deputy U.S. Marshal to find enough eligible property to be seized,  cover the fine, and end the matter.  That was not found.  It was a classic standoff.  She never went to prison, and she never paid a dime of the fine.  

This episode tells us about how one resourceful person leveraged her skill at using the 19th Century version of  the press and “social media” to further her political cause.  Susan had no personal wealth, but her use of public access brought her more influence, and brought the suffragists more press and public sympathy, than she or the fledgling movement ever could have purchased.  It  reminds us that results may follow when individuals alert a few or many others about a need to act, using whatever outreach  spaces are available at the time.  A few things you might consider? 

Engage on social media.  Click on, comment on, or share a post to spread your view far beyond your own network.  Like or follow an online poster who is  spreading valid information.  Change your profile picture icon to say “Vote No” until August 4. Write texts or emails to people you know.  Don’t just assume your family and acquaintances are keeping track of this issue.  Some of them may  care about, or want to know more about,  why you think this issue is worth a vote.  Let them know you are voting “no” and say why in a few words.  Maybe offer a ride, or suggest a carpool to go vote early (and go to lunch afterwards?).   Have a “Vote No” house or patio party, without an entry fee, or in potluck style.  Try to invite at least some people who you think aren’t going to vote or don’t yet have a position.  Give them  brief talk and free signs.  If you hate to speak, try to engage some young person to do that part.  (There are lots of young debaters or orators around, if you look for them.) There are canned presentations you can use if you don’t want to DYI. Write a letter to a paper or community newsletter. 

You can always email our own voterinformation@lwvjoco.org or communications@lwvjoco.org.  They will welcome your help in the projects and events scheduled for this election and in November.  There are canned presentations you can use if you don’t want to create your own.  And if you would like to write or talk, but you don’t have enough information to answer questions, try starting with our own Vote 411, or go to Ballotpedia.org, which is now featuring a trove of information on the August 4 Kansas amendment.