The Fight for Foreign-Born Suffrage
A legal challenge emerges as the city clerk denies voter registration to naturalized citizens lacking paper proof.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The constitutionality of the registration law was argued yesterday before Judge Langley. Attorney John Fairfield sought a writ of mandate to compel City Clerk George J. Stoneman to put the name of Matt Brannagan upon the registration list. Stoneman had refused to register Brannagan because he was of foreign birth and could not produce naturalization papers, which had been sent to Washington, D.C. to prove land title. Mr. Fairfield argued that the law created unjust discrimination between native-born citizens and those of foreign birth. He stated that Brannagan had voted here for ten years, and that many reputable citizens had seen him vote and had seen his naturalization papers. Corporation Counsel Donworth defended the legislature’s power to prescribe rules of evidence, admitting it might work a hardship but arguing that only official record evidence should be admissible. Judge Langley took the matter under consideration.
“The act seems to be one designed to disfranchise foreign-born citizens. Its essence is that the citizen is presumed to be unable to tell the truth if he be foreign born.”
This case reflects the era’s ongoing struggle over who gets to participate in American democracy. The tension between bureaucratic requirements and the lived reality of citizenship mirrors modern debates regarding voter ID laws and the hurdles faced by naturalized citizens.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.