As much as this history of the right to vote is interesting, may I remind all of you that more than half the population of the United States did not win the right to vote until 1920. I use the word win quite deliberately. Women were not given the right to vote. They fought for it -- long and hard. We need to fight for universal suffrage now. We the People, All of Us This Time!
As much as this history of the right to vote is interesting, may I remind all of you that more than half the population of the United States did not win the right to vote until 1920. I use the word win quite deliberately. Women were not given the right to vote. They fought for it -- long and hard. We need to fight for universal suffrage now. We the People, All of Us This Time!
I had a conversation yesterday with a fellow deputy who is a really decent guy (he was my first recruit in about 1989) and is now talking about retirement, which launched into a discussion about which PERS option to take (there are several that include in a person's name only that stops when that person dies, and two others that allow for a spouse to receive benefits after the death of the retiree, and another that allows a representative to receive benefits after the death of the retiree; each one of those has a decreasing monthly benefit. When he asked why I had chosen the last one, I told him that it was because at the time I retired (2013) I was legally married in California, but since Oregon had a definition of marriage as "one man and one woman" I had to be "domestically partnered" (civil process) AND because of Oregon's law, the Federal government did not recognize my marriage which really complicated things. The Obergfell decision changed that, but it was after I had retired. My marriage is dependent on the SCOTUS upholding that decision. He was pretty incredulous. SMH.
I told him that, in my opinion, if your right to vote was not granted by constitutional amendment, you didn't get to have a say in changing voting regulations. He looked quizzically, and I told him the right of Black men to vote was via the 15th Amendment, and the right of women to vote was via the 19th Amendment. He again was a little surprised, and said "I never really thought of it that way. You're right."
This is an excellent point. An additional note: the citizenship of indigenous Americans was not officially recognized until 1924 with the Snyder Act. However, regardless of the 15th Amendment having granted the vote regardless of color, states were allowed to decide eligibility, so just as many Black voters have had to deal with literacy tests, poll taxes, and other barriers to voting, it wasn't until the Voting Rights Act and beyond that their suffrage was protected.
As much as this history of the right to vote is interesting, may I remind all of you that more than half the population of the United States did not win the right to vote until 1920. I use the word win quite deliberately. Women were not given the right to vote. They fought for it -- long and hard. We need to fight for universal suffrage now. We the People, All of Us This Time!
And that when everybody votes, the system and the representatives are obliged to listen to what the people have said they want!
And we see that women are the better leaders.
The Iriquois Federation had it right. Nothing gets done until the "old ladies" say so!
"This country was a lot better off when the Indians were running it."
-- Vine Deloria Jr
Nature certainly was.
I had a conversation yesterday with a fellow deputy who is a really decent guy (he was my first recruit in about 1989) and is now talking about retirement, which launched into a discussion about which PERS option to take (there are several that include in a person's name only that stops when that person dies, and two others that allow for a spouse to receive benefits after the death of the retiree, and another that allows a representative to receive benefits after the death of the retiree; each one of those has a decreasing monthly benefit. When he asked why I had chosen the last one, I told him that it was because at the time I retired (2013) I was legally married in California, but since Oregon had a definition of marriage as "one man and one woman" I had to be "domestically partnered" (civil process) AND because of Oregon's law, the Federal government did not recognize my marriage which really complicated things. The Obergfell decision changed that, but it was after I had retired. My marriage is dependent on the SCOTUS upholding that decision. He was pretty incredulous. SMH.
I told him that, in my opinion, if your right to vote was not granted by constitutional amendment, you didn't get to have a say in changing voting regulations. He looked quizzically, and I told him the right of Black men to vote was via the 15th Amendment, and the right of women to vote was via the 19th Amendment. He again was a little surprised, and said "I never really thought of it that way. You're right."
This is an excellent point. An additional note: the citizenship of indigenous Americans was not officially recognized until 1924 with the Snyder Act. However, regardless of the 15th Amendment having granted the vote regardless of color, states were allowed to decide eligibility, so just as many Black voters have had to deal with literacy tests, poll taxes, and other barriers to voting, it wasn't until the Voting Rights Act and beyond that their suffrage was protected.