The Day the Supreme Court Barred Seattle Women from the Ballot Box
In a pivotal 1888 ruling, the Washington Territorial Supreme Court officially disenfranchised women, setting the stage for a decades-long fight for political agency.
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.
Following is the substance of the opinion rendered by the supreme court of Washington Territory in the woman’s suffrage law case: Nevada M. Woomer, appellant, vs. John Todd, J. E. Gandy, and H. A. Clarke, appellees. The appellant commenced this action in the district court for Spokane County. The plaintiff alleged that on April 3, 1888, she was a female citizen of the United States, over 21 years of age, a resident and qualified elector of the territory, and sought to vote in the Fourth Ward of Spokane Falls. The defendants, acting as judges of election, refused to receive her ballot, causing her damage and disgrace. The district court sustained a demurrer, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the Territory.
The issue before the court was the validity of the act of the legislative assembly approved January 1888, which conferred the privilege of suffrage upon women. Chief Justice R. A. Jones, writing for the court, ruled that the word 'citizen' in the Organic Act, when used regarding the elective franchise, was intended by Congress to mean 'male citizen.' The court held that the right of suffrage is a privilege conferred by law, not a natural right, and that it could be limited or enlarged by the legislature only within its own constitutional bounds. The decision concluded: 'In 1854, when this act was passed, the word 'citizen' was used as a qualification for voting and holding office and, in our judgment, the word then meant and still signifies male citizenship and must be so construed.' The judgment of the lower court was affirmed, effectively stripping women of the right to vote in the territory.
“The right of suffrage is not a natural right but a privilege conferred by law. It may be limited or enlarged by the legislature.”
This ruling highlights how legal definitions of 'citizenship' have historically been used to gatekeep political power. Today, Seattle remains a hub for civic activism, but this 1888 case serves as a sharp reminder that hard-won voting rights can be—and were—revoked by the stroke of a judicial pen.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.