Women gaining vote in Washington took decades

By: Andrea Doll and Wende Sanderson

This month, we celebrate the 100th anniversary of ratification of the 19th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

Although women in our state had voting rights since 1910, that was not true for most other states in our country. It wasn’t until 1919 that Congress voted to pass the 19th amendment. And then it was up to the states to ratify. By August 1920, the necessary 36 states (including Washington) had ratified the amendment, making it the law of the land.

It has been a long and winding path – including the early efforts for voting equality in Washington state and it continues to today, as we consider the future of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment for legal gender equality and other social justice issues.

Question readers: If you are born in this country or achieve naturalization does that make you a citizen? Answer: yes, today you are a citizen. But not if you were a woman living in Washington in the 1860s.

In 1866 Washington wrote its election code and stated that all white citizens could vote. There was then debate on the territorial legislature’s House floor. It was argued by Representative Edward Eldridge that women were included in that category. They were born here. They were white. Eldridge’s argument was successful in removing the word “male” from Washington’s voting laws – until his new legislation was put to the test at different precincts in Thurston County by women determined to vote.

In 1869 Mary Olney Brown, an ardent suffragist, tried to cast her ballot in Olympia. She was told by election workers that she was NOT a citizen, and therefore, not eligible to vote. Though she pointed to the unabridged Webster’s dictionary definition which stated that “A citizen of the United States, is a person owing allegiance to the government”, she was prevented from casting her ballot.

The next year she tried again to vote and was again denied. But what a difference tactics can make! Only a few miles away, in Great Mound, in that same election Mary’s sister, Charlotte Emily Olney French, devised a different strategy. She gathered a group of women and organized a picnic at their polling place on election day. They invited election officials to join them for the picnic dinner. Table talk included a discussion of the 14th amendment – which granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” After a pleasant meal and the interesting conversation, Charlotte and her fellow women went into the polling place and indeed cast their ballots.

The very next year the Washington Territorial Legislature passed legislation specifically denying women the right to vote. It would take 40 years, till 1910, for Washington women to regain the right to vote – and 10 years prior to the ratification of the 19th amendment to the other states in our country.

Consistency in law means interpreting it in a uniform manner and it requires agreed-upon definitions. Why did those two voting scenarios turn out so differently? And how have we improved in implementing those concepts in the ensuing years?

The questions of citizenship, voting rights, consistency in applying the law and the concept of equality are relevant today. Let’s recognize and applaud the success of those brave suffragists who fought long and hard for the passage of the 19th amendment. And in their honor, let’s continue to strive for “a more perfect union” – one that unites and recognizes the need for equal rights and opportunities for all our citizens.