Skip to main content

The 19th Amendment Turns 91

Today is the 91st anniversary of the ratification of the 19th amendment, granting the right to vote to all U.S. citizens, regardless of sex. The movement for women's suffrage largely originated in 1848 at the Seneca Falls Convention, where the right to vote was described as an "inalienable right." Suffragists employed several different methods to meet their objectives on the federal, state, and local levels, including demonstrating, lobbying elected officials to pass state legislation granting suffrage, giving speeches, and going on hunger strikes.

They also tried to get laws that limited voting to male citizens overturned in court, but that strategy was unsuccessful. In 1878, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Minor v. Happersett (21 Wallace 162) that the 14th amendment did not include the right for women to vote as one of its privileges and immunities to citizens. It was also the first year in which an amendment was proposed in Congress that would extend the franchise to women nationwide.

Throughout the late 19th century, the women's rights movement slowly increased its appeal, and the role women played during World War I finally convinced President Wilson to back an amendment to the Constitution in 1918. The 19th amendment was passed in the House of Representatives on May 21, 1919, and the Senate followed suit shortly afterward. Tennessee became the necessary 36th state to reach the three-fourths of states needed to agree, with a very close vote of 50 to 49 in its House of Representatives on August 18th, 1920. The ratification was officially certified 8 days later.

Sources:
Deborah L. Rhode, Nineteenth Amendment, in Encyclopedia of the American Constitution 1808-1809 (Leonard W. Levy & Kenneth L. Karst eds., 2000).

National Archives & Records Administration, Featured Documents: The Constitution and the 19th Amendment.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Amazing, but True, Deportation Story of Carlos Marcello

Earlier this week, the University of Houston Law Center was fortunate to have as its guest Professor Daniel Kanstroom of Boston College of Law. An expert in immigration law, he is the Director of the International Human Rights Program, and he both founded and directs the Boston College Immigration and Asylum Clinic. Speaking as the guest of the Houston Journal of International Law’s annual Fall Lecture Series, Professor Kanstroom discussed issues raised in his new book, Aftermath: Deportation Law and the New American Diaspora . Professor Michael Olivas introduced Professor Kanstroom to the audience, and mentioned the fascinating tale of Carlos Marcello, which Professor Kanstroom wrote about in his chapter “The Long, Complex, and Futile Deportation Saga of Carlos Marcello,” in Immigration Stories , a collection of narratives about leading immigration law cases. My interest piqued, I read and was amazed by Kanstroom’s description of one of the most interesting figures in American le

C-SPAN Video Archive Now Online

Legislative researchers and politics fans take note. C-SPAN recently completed a digitization project placing the entirety of its video collection online. The archives record all three C-SPAN networks seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. The videos are available at no cost for historical, educational, research, and archival uses. The database includes over 160,000 hours of video recorded since 1987 and the programs are indexed by subject, speaker names, titles, affiliations, sponsors, committees, categories, formats, policy groups, keywords, and locations. The most recent, most watched, and most shared videos are highlighted on the main page. To start watching, visit the C-SPAN Video Library and use the search function at the top of the page.

Texas Subsequent History Table Ceases Publication

This week, Thomson Reuters notified subscribers that publication of the Texas Subsequent History Table will be discontinued and no further updates will be produced, due to “insufficient market interest.” Practitioners have been extracting writ (and since 1997, petition) history from the tables since their initial publication in 1917 as The Complete Texas Writs of Error Table . The tables, later published by West, have been used for nearly a century to determine how the Texas Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals disposed of an appeal from an intermediate appellate court. The purpose of adding this notation to citations is to indicate the effect of the Texas Supreme Court’s action on the weight of authority of the Court of Appeals’ opinion.  For example, practitioners may prefer to use as authority a case that the Texas Supreme Court has determined is correct both in result and legal principles applied (petition refused), rather than one that simply presents no error that requires