The Voting Power of the Skokomish Reservation
A surge in voting participation at the Union City precinct raises questions about Indigenous franchise and its impact on Mason County politics.
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.
Hood’s Canal, with the Union City precinct, came out in a force undreamed of at the recent election, and went solid for McReavy, securing his election, which the vote of past elections could not have done. McReavy’s majority over Fairfield, the Chehalis County republican nominee, is 21 votes. At Union City precinct forty Indians were voted this year, and, it will be seen, without this large addition to the usual vote Mr. McReavy’s chances would be doubtful. At the general election last fall but few Indians voted. There is an opinion that the Indians cannot vote, legally, but under the provisions of a late act they are given this power, though the privilege is not generally exercised by them so far. There seems to be some doubt in the matter, and we have seen no legal decision in this question.
“At Union City precinct forty Indians were voted this year, and, it will be seen, without this large addition to the usual vote Mr. McReavy’s chances would be doubtful.”
This article highlights the tension surrounding the 1880s franchise for Indigenous people in Washington, a period where tribal members' political influence was suddenly recognized and often met with suspicion by settlers. It underscores the early, complicated history of Indigenous civic engagement in Mason County, long before the modern era of sovereign tribal relations.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.