The Day Seattle’s Women Lost the Vote
When the Territorial Supreme Court struck down women’s suffrage in 1887, the city’s lawyers, politicians, and citizens scrambled to interpret the fallout of a ruling that suddenly stripped thousands of their hard-won rights.
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 the decision of the Supreme Court in declaring the Woman Suffrage act unconstitutional, reporters were sent to all classes of people to obtain their opinions. The decision will have no effect whatever upon elections, except in those where contests may be pending upon challenges duly made to the women who voted for the successful candidates. It will have no effect whatever upon cases already tried, except where exceptions have been taken and appeals duly perfected. Many of the acts of the Legislature have titles similar to the one in question, and if one is bad, all are bad. L. C. Gilman, Esq., would not pronounce an opinion until after he had an opportunity to carefully examine the law. He had, however, met the question heretofore in the practice of his profession and was inclined to view the matter in accord with the decision of the court as he understood it to have been rendered. James Hamilton Lewis, counsel for King, Snohomish, and Skagit counties, was very much disinclined to express myself upon the subjects you spoke of, upon some reflection, lest I get myself into deep water by being misquoted. It is quite a difficult matter to get the ladies to express themselves, knowing their statements are to be published. For instance, one reporter was given a list of seventeen ladies to interview. He saw all of them. Three favored suffrage, and fourteen were against it, but notwithstanding this, but three would permit their views to be expressed in print, and two of those favor woman suffrage.
“The decision will have no effect whatever upon elections, except in those where contests may be pending upon challenges duly made to the women who voted for the successful candidates.”
In 1887, Washington's Supreme Court used a technicality regarding the 'title' of the legislation to invalidate a three-year-old women's suffrage law. This moment of civic instability echoes modern debates where administrative and judicial technicalities are leveraged to roll back established civil rights, illustrating how fragile progress can feel in the face of sudden legal shifts.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.