The Coerced Vote: A State Official’s View on Compulsory Citizenship
When a worker asked if employers had the right to force registration, the Secretary of State endorsed the pressure, setting a precedent for civic ‘tyranny.’
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.
Secretary of State J. Grant Hinkle has little patience for the person who holds his American citizenship so cheaply that he will not take an intelligent interest in public affairs, register and vote at elections. That is why he was rather sharp in his answer to a Washougal correspondent who last week asked him the following questions: 'Officers of the woolen mill in this place are asking their employees if they have registered. Why should a person lose his job if he does not register? I thought it was the right of a person to register or not just as he or she chose. Is this not a kind of tyranny which is not allowed or legalized by the U.S. Federal constitution? What has become of our boasted American liberty? What is the punishment in Washington for one who forces one to register and vote?' To this, Secretary Hinkle in reply said, in part: 'I know of no law that can compel you to register. I do not know the name of the corporation you are working for, but they have my hearty approval in their efforts to have all their employees register and vote. I know of no law for requiring a person to register. I sincerely wish there was a penalty for a citizen of these United States who will not register and try to make it a better government by voting for what he or she thinks is the best interest of our country.'
“I sincerely wish there was a penalty for a citizen of these United States who will not register and try to make it a better government.”
This 1924 exchange highlights the historical tension between private employment and public civic duty. It mirrors modern debates over the limits of employer influence in the private lives of workers, particularly regarding political participation.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.