1911 California Proposition 4

Last updated

Proposition 4 of 1911 (or Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 8) was an amendment of the Constitution of California that granted women the right to vote in the state for the first time. Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 8 was sponsored by Republican State Senator Charles W. Bell from Pasadena, California. [1] It was adopted by the California State Legislature and approved by voters in a referendum held as part of a special election on October 10, 1911.

Contents

An earlier attempt to enfranchise women had been rejected by California voters in 1896, [2] but in 1911 California became the sixth U.S. state to adopt the reform. [3] Nine years later in 1920, women's suffrage was constitutionally recognized at the federal level by the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment prohibited both the federal government and all of the states from denying women the right to vote.

Proposition 4 Election

Proposition 4 was narrowly approved by California voters with 50.7 percent support. [4] Election evening results appeared to indicate that Proposition 4 would be defeated as there was strong opposition from the San Francisco Bay Area. [5] However, late returns from the agricultural and rural parts of the state overcame majority opposition from Bay Area cities such as San Francisco and Oakland. [6]

The county with the highest level of support for Proposition 4 was the rural Modoc County (70.5% support). The county with the lowest level of support for Proposition 4 was San Francisco County (38.1% support). Other notable counties voting against giving women the right to vote included Marin County (41.6% support), San Mateo County (44.5% support), and Alameda County (45.4% support). [7]

The ballot argument in favor of Proposition 4 was written by Republican State Senator C.W. Bell and Republican Assemblyman H.G. Cattell, both from southern California. The ballot argument against Proposition 4 was written by Democratic State Senator J.B. Sanford from northern California. [8]

Controversial Editorials and Opinion Pieces Against Women’s Suffrage

In 1911, there were several editorials and opinion pieces published by the Los Angeles Times against women’s suffrage, including Proposition 4.

A Los Angeles Times editorial dated January 21, 1911, stated that “women are incapable of physically dominating men. By their inferior physical strength they are unable to compete on an equal basis in any line of endeavor where ability is determined by sheer bodily prowess. All positions of physical power - such as in our police forces, our armies and our navies - will necessarily be filled by men. In other words the enforcement of all law must inevitably rest with men. No law or ordinance could be effectually upheld except through the willingness of men to uphold it. And no matter what words were written on the statute books of any State, if the physical power (which is the masculine power) behind it were withdrawn, the law would immediately become void and impotent. Therefore in equal suffrage we have the spectacle of women desiring to pass laws which they are physically incapable of upholding, and laws which they admit the men do not want.” [9]

A Los Angeles Times editorial dated August 19, 1911, stated that: “Possession of the ballot will not help woman, socially or industrially. It will make exactions upon her time and strength. It will invade the home and destroy its charm. It will not result in wiser laws or better government.” [10]

A Los Angeles Times editorial dated September 22, 1911, stated that: “The working man - whether he be a Republican, a Democrat or a Socialist - who walks along Broadway or Spring Street on Saturday afternoon and sees thousands of fashionably-attired girls and women of mature age parading in autos and making woman-suffrage speeches says to himself, ‘Are these butterflies to be entrusted with the task of making laws for me?’” The editorial also stated that “[t]he Times opposes woman suffrage because it does not believe in either the justice or the expediency of burdening the women of California with the duty of voting.” [11]

In a Los Angeles Times opinion piece dated October 1, 1911, Democratic State Senator J.B. Sanford, who was Chairman of the Democratic Caucus of California at the time, [12] called women’s suffrage a “disease,” a “political hysteria,” a “cruel and intolerable burden,” and a “backward step in the progress of civilization.” [13] In the same opinion piece published by the Los Angeles Times, Democratic State Senator Sanford also used homophobic language in writing the following about certain classes of people who advocate women’s suffrage: “It is the mannish female politician and the little effeminate, sissy man, and the woman who is dissatisfied with her lot and sorry that she was born a woman.” [14]

1896 Rejection of Women’s Suffrage by California Voters

During the November 3, 1896 General Election, California voters rejected Constitutional Amendment No. 6 which would have given women the right to vote. The suffrage amendment was defeated by a double-digit margin with 44.6 percent support. [15] Notable counties voting against giving women the right to vote included San Francisco County (26.1% support), San Mateo County (29.9% support), Marin County (30.8% support), Contra Costa County (37.7% support), Sacramento County (40.0% support), Sonoma County (40.4% support), Alameda County (40.7% support), and Santa Clara County (49.0% support). [16]

Both the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle opposed Constitutional Amendment No. 6 which would have given women the right to vote. [17] [18]

Progressive Era of Reforms

Women's suffrage was a part of the Progressive Era of reforms. On the same election day that Proposition 4 was approved, voters enacted the modern system of direct democracy in California, by approving Proposition 7, which introduced the initiative and the optional referendum powers, and Proposition 8, which introduced the recall of public officials.

Constitutional Suffrage Reforms Excluded

While Proposition 4 gave women the right to vote in California, the proposition did not alter the existing discriminatory provisions in the California Constitution limiting the right to vote, including prohibiting natives of China from voting, prohibiting the mentally disabled from voting, and prohibiting persons from voting who were unable to read the Constitution in the English language and write their name. [19]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1920 amendment mandating womens suffrage

The Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the United States and its states from denying the right to vote to citizens of the United States on the basis of sex, in effect recognizing the right of women to a vote. The amendment was the culmination of a decades-long movement for women's suffrage in the United States, at both the state and national levels, and was part of the worldwide movement towards women's suffrage and part of the wider women's rights movement. The first women's suffrage amendment was introduced in Congress in 1878. However, a suffrage amendment did not pass the House of Representatives until May 21, 1919, which was quickly followed by the Senate, on June 4, 1919. It was then submitted to the states for ratification, achieving the requisite 36 ratifications to secure adoption, and thereby go into effect, on August 18, 1920. The Nineteenth Amendment's adoption was certified on August 26, 1920.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2000 California Proposition 22</span> Referendum in California on same-sex marriage ban

Proposition 22 was a law enacted by California voters in March 2000 stating that marriage was between one man and one woman. In November 2008, Proposition 8 was also passed by voters, again only allowing marriage between one man and one woman.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California ballot proposition</span> Statewide referendum item in California

In California, a ballot proposition is a referendum or an initiative measure that is submitted to the electorate for a direct decision or direct vote. If passed, it can alter one or more of the articles of the Constitution of California, one or more of the 29 California Codes, or another law in the California Statutes by clarifying current or adding statute(s) or removing current statute(s).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 209</span> Ballot proposition that banned affirmative action in California

Proposition 209 is a California ballot proposition which, upon approval in November 1996, amended the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Modeled on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Civil Rights Initiative was authored by two California academics, Glynn Custred and Tom Wood. It was the first electoral test of affirmative action policies in North America. It passed with 55% in favor to 45% opposed.

Same-sex marriage in California has been legal since June 28, 2013. The U.S. state first issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples on June 16, 2008 as a result of the Supreme Court of California finding in the case of In re Marriage Cases that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the Constitution of California. The issuance of such licenses was halted from November 5, 2008 through June 27, 2013 due to the passage of Proposition 8—a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages. The granting of same-sex marriages recommenced following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which restored the effect of a federal district court ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1964 California Proposition 14</span> 1964 California ballot proposition

California Proposition 14 was a November 1964 initiative ballot measure that amended the California state constitution to nullify the 1963 Rumford Fair Housing Act, thereby allowing property sellers, landlords and their agents to openly discriminate on ethnic grounds when selling or letting accommodations, as they had been permitted to before 1963. The proposition became law after receiving support from 65% of voters. In 1966, the California Supreme Court in a 5–2 split decision declared Proposition 14 unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that decision in 1967 in Reitman v. Mulkey.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 4</span> Failed ballot proposition on abortion

Proposition 4, or the Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative, also known to its supporters as Sarah's Law, was an initiative state constitutional amendment in the 2008 California general election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 8</span> Ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment passed in November 2008

Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.

Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364, 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d 591, 207 P.3d 48 (2009), was a decision of the Supreme Court of California, the state's highest court. It resulted from lawsuits that challenged the voters' adoption of Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008, which amended the Constitution of California to outlaw same-sex marriage. Several gay couples and governmental entities filed the lawsuits in California state trial courts. The Supreme Court of California agreed to hear appeals in three of the cases and consolidated them so they would be considered and decided. The supreme court heard oral argument in the cases in San Francisco on March 5, 2009. Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar stated that the cases will set precedent in California because "no previous case had presented the question of whether [a ballot] initiative could be used to take away fundamental rights".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1911 California Proposition 7</span> Amendment to the Constitution of California adding the initiative and optional referendum

Proposition 7 of 1911 was an amendment of the Constitution of California that introduced, for the first time, the initiative and the optional referendum. Prior to 1911 the only form of direct democracy in California was the compulsory referendum.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 California Proposition 14</span> California ballot measure

Proposition 14 is a California ballot proposition that appeared on the ballot during the June 2010 state elections. It was a constitutional amendment that effectively transformed California's non-presidential elections from first-past-the-post to a nonpartisan blanket primary. The proposition was legislatively referred to voters by the State Legislature and approved by 54% of the voters. It consolidated all primary elections for a particular office into an election with one ballot that would be identical to all voters, regardless of their party preferences. The two candidates with the most votes in the primary election would then be the only candidates who would run in the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ellen Clark Sargent</span>

Ellen Clark Sargent was an active American women's suffragist. She was influential in advocacy for the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which sought to give women the right to vote.

This timeline highlights milestones in women's suffrage in the United States, particularly the right of women to vote in elections at federal and state levels.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 59</span> California ballot proposition

California Proposition 59 is a non-binding advisory question that appeared on the 2016 California November general election ballot. It asked voters if they wanted California to work towards overturning the Citizens United U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sarah Knox-Goodrich</span> American suffragist

Sarah L. Knox-Goodrich (1825–1903) was a women's rights activist who worked for women's suffrage in California in the late nineteenth century. Her first husband, William Knox, was a business man, banker, and state politician. Her second husband, Levi Goodrich, was an architect in Southern California. Knox-Goodrich used her wealth and her social position to push for equal employment, school suffrage, and voting rights.

This timeline provides an overview of the political movement for women's suffrage in California. Women's suffrage became legal with the passage of Proposition 4 in 1911 yet not all women were enfranchised as a result of this legislation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Women's suffrage in California</span> 19th century political struggle

Women's suffrage in California refers to the political struggle for voting rights for women in the state of California. The movement began in the 19th century and was successful with the passage of Proposition 4 on October 10, 1911. Many of the women and men involved in this movement remained politically active in the national suffrage movement with organizations such as the National American Women's Suffrage Association and the National Woman's Party.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 17</span> 2020 California ballot proposition

The 2020 California Proposition 17 is a ballot measure that appeared on the ballot in the 2020 California elections on November 3. Prop 17 amended the Constitution of California to allow people who are on parole to vote. Due to the passage of this proposition, more than 50,000 people in California who are currently on parole and have completed their prison sentence are now eligible to vote and to run for public office. This proposition also provides that all those on parole in the future will be allowed to vote and run for public office as well. The work of Proposition 17 comes out of a history of addressing felony disenfranchisement in the United States. California voters approved this measured by a margin of roughly 18 percentage points.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Women's suffrage in Iowa</span>

Women's suffrage in Iowa efforts began early in Iowa's history. During the territory's Constitutional Convention, discussions on both African American and women's suffrage took place. Early on, women's rights were discussed in the state by women such as Amelia Bloomer and petitions for suffrage were sent to the Iowa state legislature. While African American men earned the right to vote in 1868, women from all backgrounds had to continue to agitate for enfranchisement. One of the first suffrage groups was formed in Dubuque in 1869. Not long after, a state suffrage convention was held in Mount Pleasant in 1870. Iowa suffragists focused on organizing and lobbying the state legislature. In 1894, women gained the right to vote on municipal bond and tax issues and also in school elections. These rights were immediately utilized by women who turned out in good numbers to vote on these issues. By the 1910s, the state legislature finally passed in successive sessions a women's suffrage amendment to the state constitution. This resulted in a voter referendum to be held on the issue on June 5, 1916. The campaign included anti-suffrage agitation from liquor interests who claimed that women's suffrage would cause higher taxes. The amendment was defeated, though a subsequent investigation turned up a large amount of fraud. However, the election could not be invalidated and women had to wait to vote. On July 2, 1919, Iowa became the tenth state to ratify the Nineteenth Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2022 California Proposition 1</span> Abortion and contraception proposition

Proposition 1, titled Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom and initially known as Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 (SCA 10), is a California ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment that was voted upon in the 2022 general election on November 8. Passing with more than two-thirds of the vote, the proposition amended the Constitution of California to explicitly grant the right to an abortion and contraceptives, making California among the first states in the nation to do so with Michigan and Vermont. The decision to propose the codification of abortion rights in the state constitution was precipitated in May 2022 by Politico's publishing of a leaked draft opinion showing the United States Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, reversing judicial precedent that previously held that the United States constitution protected the right to an abortion.

References

  1. California Legislature, Final Calendar of Legislative Business, Thirty-Ninth Session (1911), p. 300.
  2. "200 Significant Statutes and Constitutional Amendments of the 20th Century". Archived from the original on 2010-10-03. Retrieved 2009-11-19.
  3. "California Women's Suffrage Campaign of 1911" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-08-14. Retrieved 2009-11-19.
  4. California Secretary of State, Statement of Vote October 10, 1911, p. 4.
  5. "Suffrage May Lose – Amendment Seems Defeated". Los Angeles Times. October 11, 1911. p. I1.
  6. "Women Win in California". Washington Post. October 13, 1911. p. 1.
  7. California Secretary of State, Statement of Vote October 10, 1911, p. 4.
  8. California Secretary of State, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the State of California, with Legislative Reasons for and against Adoption Thereof, October 10, 1911 Special Election.
  9. "Women-Made Laws". Los Angeles Times. January 21, 1911. p. II4.
  10. "No More Burdens for Women". Los Angeles Times. August 19, 1911. p. II4.
  11. "'The Times' and Suffrage". Los Angeles Times. September 22, 1911. p. II4.
  12. Waymire, Jessica (April 8, 2011). "History of women's suffrage". Tri-City Voice.
  13. Sanford, J.B. (October 1, 1911). "Woman Suffrage Means Disruption of the Home". Los Angeles Times. p. V19.
  14. Sanford, J.B. (October 1, 1911). "Woman Suffrage Means Disruption of the Home". Los Angeles Times. p. V19.
  15. California Secretary of State, Statement of Vote November 3, 1896, p. 15.
  16. California Secretary of State, Statement of Vote November 3, 1896, p. 15.
  17. "The Constitutional Amendments". Los Angeles Times. October 31, 1896. p. 6.
  18. "This Ticket the Best One to Vote". San Francisco Chronicle. November 3, 1896. p. 16.
  19. California Secretary of State, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the State of California, with Legislative Reasons for and against Adoption Thereof, October 10, 1911 Special Election.