Votes for women, sexual consent, and the revolution we need to continue

Posted on October 5, 2020. Filed under: American history, Civil Rights, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

There’s a very interesting article in the Smithsonian Magazine about “What Raising the Age of Sexual Consent Taught Women About the Vote”. It’s hard for us to believe today, but the age of consent for females was set by each state, and in 1895, 38 of those states set the age of consent at 21 or younger–in Delaware, the age of consent for a female was 7 years of age.

Most states set it at 12 or 13, considering this the age most girls began to menstruate, which meant, according to male lawmakers, that sexually she was an adult and would of course always consent to sex. And as the article points out, the consent age gave men complete freedom to rape girls and say the girl had consented; that’s all that was required if (and only if) the man was questioned. “She consented,” he could say, and that would be that.

Women who wanted to change this found allies in the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. The WCTU and “the temperance movement” were and still are reviled and mocked as frigid, frustrated, idiotic old maids who didn’t want people to have fun. What the WCTU really did was attempt to change state laws and business practices that sanctioned and even promoted drunkenness–for men only–that led to disastrous consequences for women, especially their wives. Many taverns made deals with factories to have the factory send male employees’ pay envelopes directly to the tavern, in hopes that the men would not be able to resist the temptation and end up drinking their entire salary away. Men staggered home drunk and broke, meaning their families went hungry, and, worse, that women asking where the pay was were often beaten and sometimes killed. Worse, in most states a man who killed his wife while drunk could be let off because he was drunk–a sort of “not guilty by reason of intoxication”–and no man could be held accountable for something he did while he was drunk. (See “Part 1: Roots of Prohibition” of Ken Burns’ documentary Prohibition for details on the climate of drunkenness in 19th century America and why it happened.)

So the WCTU fought alcohol manufacturers and distributors (i.e., bar and tavern owners), not alcohol itself, for what they did to women. They were a natural ally for women seeking to raise the age of sexual consent in the late 1890s and early 1900s.

It was tough going. Women petitioning their state governments were ridiculed and sometimes removed. In the south, rape was openly acknowledged as a way to maintain white male power over black women, and the idea that a black woman might be able to successfully accuse a white man of rape and he might go to jail was out of the question. As the Smithsonian article points out, white male legislators perverted the age of consent drive to write abominable laws against black men accused of rape, guaranteeing they were tortured, mutilated, and/or killed.

With great tenacity and bravery, American women pressed on. They realized that for as long as legislators were always and only men, there would never be justice for women. They organized themselves to gain the vote, which is remarkable. Women pressing for a right they had been denied were already targets for harassment and violence. Women talking openly about sex and rape and child rape and rape as a tool of racism were a hundred times more vulnerable to attack. Brick by brick they scaled the wall of sexism and won the vote in 1920. Once women began to vote, female legislators began to exist, and like “magic”, somehow, the age of consent rose in all existing states to between 16 and 18.

We owe these women a tremendous debt that can only be repaid by exercising the right they had to fight for at the cost of their lives: women voting. American women have been steadily told that sexism is at once not that big a deal and all over, a thing of the past. It’s like telling non-white Americans that we’re living in a “post-racism” society. American women are being urged not to be strident, angry, hysterical… like women have been told for centuries.

So much more work needs to be done to end sexism, and so much of it is being done in the court of public opinion–a man who preyed on women is forced to resign from his job. And it ends there. But American women at the turn of the 20th century didn’t win the vote so men who prey on women could remain safely outside the legal system. Freedom is maintained by law. We need to vote for legislators who will fight for enforcement of existing laws against rape and sexual discrimination. We need to vote for legislators who don’t let cases of rape and sexual discrimination be tried in the court of public opinion. We all–men and women–need to fight like Temperance women and Suffragettes for real justice.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Johnson’s “We Shall Overcome” speech

Posted on March 27, 2014. Filed under: Civil Rights, Politics, U.S. Constitution | Tags: , , , , , |

March 2014 marks the anniversary of a crucially important milestone in U.S. history: President Johnson’s 1965 speech calling on Americans—white Americans—to commit themselves to voting equality for black Americans.

The Fifteenth Amendment had guaranteed all U.S. citizens the right to vote regardless of race. But the concerted efforts of whites, particularly in the South, to prevent at first black American men, and then women, from exercising that right, meant that by 1965 only about 20% of black Americans qualified to vote (that is, at least 18 years of age and a U.S. citizen) were voting. Intimidation, torture, and murder were regularly used to keep black Americans from voting. Southern states passed laws requiring black Americans to pay poll taxes and pass literacy tests to be able to vote.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which Johnson pushed through Congress with all his considerable energy and powers of persuasion, outlawed discrimination in hiring and housing, but it had little impact on the number of black Americans being registered to vote. On March 7, 1965, nonviolent, unarmed marchers protesting repression of the vote in Selma, Alabama were brutally attacked by state police armed with clubs, bull whips, and tear gas. The attack was filmed by national television crews and broadcast to the nation. It was one thing to hear about police brutality, and to speculate that it must have been justified somehow; it was another thing entirely to see young people being beaten to the ground and then kicked and beaten further, all for asking that they be allowed to exercise a right they had been granted by the U.S. government almost exactly a century before.

President Johnson was one of those Americans who watched the footage from Selma and was infuriated and repelled by what he saw. Johnson was a sincere proponent of civil rights, and he had staked a lifetime of political clout on passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Everyone expected him to back down after that, and not “push” the Southern Democrats for anything more on the race front. Instead, Johnson went on TV himself, and spoke to the nation, one week after the attack at Selma, and asked the American people to live up to their creed and ensure the voting rights of black Americans.

We’ll go through his powerful address in the next few posts, and then talk about the reaction it provoked and the legislation it enabled.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Supreme Court strikes down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Posted on June 26, 2013. Filed under: Civil Rights, Politics, U.S. Constitution | Tags: , , , |

We noted back in March that the Supreme Court was hearing arguments to strike down vital sections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Yesterday, it did just that, ruling that Section 4 of the Act requiring nine states, mostly in the South, to get federal approval of any proposed changes to state voting law, is unconstitutional.

As we said in our March post,

“The VRA was passed in 1965 as part of President Johnson’s civil rights legislation. The U.S. Department of Justice website describes it this way: ‘Pursuant to the Act, the Voting Section undertakes investigations and litigation throughout the United States and its territories, conducts administrative review of changes in voting practices and procedures in certain jurisdictions, and monitors elections in various parts of the country.’ This means that voting procedures anywhere in the U.S. can be reviewed, especially when those procedures are changed, and that elections can be monitored to make sure they are fair. Notice the language goes from the entire U.S. and its territories to “certain jurisdictions”—this was originally directed at the southern states, where repression of black voters was well-documented. The Act does not say “southern states” because its authors knew that while it was the south that had a demonstrable problem with fair elections in 1965, the problem could crop up anywhere else at any time. So wherever unfair elections were discovered, those “certain jurisdictions” would come under scrutiny.

Sections 2, 4 and 5 of the Act are the most critical. Section 2 forbids race discrimination in poll worker hiring, voter registration, and redistricting plans. Section 4 sets out the criteria for determining when a jurisdiction is violating fair elections and voting. And Section 5 states that once your state or territory has been designated as problematic and unfair in its voting and election process, any change with respect to voting there can’t be legally enforced until it’s been reviewed by the U.S. District Court or Attorney General. Any jurisdiction with a proven history of voting discrimination had to prove that the change being proposed is not discriminatory—not just another attempt to prevent minorities from voting freely. The jurisdiction has to prove the absence of racial discrimination, and if it can’t, the proposed change cannot be made law. If the suspect jurisdiction can prove that it has gone 10 years without any voter discrimination, it is no longer subject to Section 5.

The key word in all this, of course, is proof. The suspect locale has to prove it is not discriminatory. This represents a rejection of the federal government’s traditional tactic, post-Reconstruction, of listening to southern political leaders say everything was just fine and there was no threatening or lynching of black voters and saying, Great—that’s good news.”

Returning to the present, the Court was reviewing two things: whether racial minorities still face voting intimidation and restriction nearly 50 years after the 1965 Act; and whether it was unfair to keep singling out Southern states for closer inspection than other states. The answer to both these questions was “no”.  The current system, says the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day. Congress—if it is to divide the states—must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current condition. It cannot simply rely on the past.”

That it, we can’t say that since Southern states prevented black citizens from voting during Reconstruction, in the 1870s, those states should still be identified as requiring federal oversight. The problem with this logic is that one does not have to go back to the 1870s to find voter repression in the Southern states singled out (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and Virginia). These states were preventing black people from voting in the 1920s, 1950s, 1970s, and today. The history of intimidation, arson, and murder used to prevent black Americans from voting in those states is unbroken from 1865 to 2013.

The proof of this claim is in the hundreds of proposed changes to state voting laws in the Southern states currently pending at the U.S. Department of Justice. It’s in the statements made yesterday by Republican leaders in those states that they will take “immediate action” to not only introduce new laws restricting voting rights, but to revive and pass old laws that were rejected by the Justice Department as infringing on the right to vote.

“After the high court announced its momentous ruling Tuesday, officials in Texas and Mississippi pledged to immediately implement laws requiring voters to show photo identification before getting a ballot,” reports the Houston Chronicle. “North Carolina Republicans promised they would quickly try to adopt a similar law. Florida now appears free to set its early voting hours however Gov. Rick Scott and the GOP Legislature please. And Georgia’s most populous county likely will use county commission districts that Republican state legislators drew over the objections of local Democrats. …Laughlin McDonald, who heads the American Civil Liberties Union’s voting rights office, said he agrees that pending submissions to the Justice Department are now moot. It’s less clear what happens to scores of laws that the feds have already denied since the 2006 reauthorization.”

The Southern Republicans in question say that the ruling is a validation of their states’ move away from racial discrimination, an acknowledgement that times have changed. In one way they are right: over the past 20 years, Southern politicians widened the scope of their ambition to attempt to prevent not just black Americans from voting, but the poor, elderly, and Latino as well—all groups they perceive as voting for Democratic party. They have moved away from purely racial discrimination to a much broader discrimination.

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, said, “Voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that. The question is whether the Act’s extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements. As we put it a short time ago, ‘the Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs.’”

This is the linchpin of the argument against the VRA: that it is unconstitutional because it only imposes oversight on Southern states. In 1965, only Southern states flagrantly defied federal law to prevent black people from voting, yet as we noted above the Act does not just apply to the South. It applies to “certain jurisdictions” where voters’ rights have been infringed upon. That can be anywhere. For many decades it was only in the South, but again times have indeed changed, and now states all over the country are eagerly introducing voting rights infringement laws, as the drive to prevent perceived Democratic voters from participating in elections spreads.

To basically gut the VRA because people claim it is unequally applied, while confirming that the problem the Act solves—voting discrimination—is still a problem is a move so contrary to common sense that it must call into question the majority of the Court’s commitment to voting rights.

In his perceptive and deeply researched book African Americans Confront Lynching, Christopher Waldrep traces the struggle black anti-lynching activists undertook from the late-1880s on to get the federal government to pass anti-lynching laws and enforce those laws on the state level. The NAACP later worked to do the same for segregation laws. The problem they all faced was that the federal government left enforcement of the few national civil rights laws passed after the Civil War (the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, or “Reconstruction Amendments”) to the states. The Southern states would not enforce these laws, and the federal government knew it. But rather than make the effort and fight the enormous fight to get those states to obey federal law, the national government allowed them to bray that any attempt to enforce federal law in the states was a violation of states’ rights. In this way Southern states openly and proudly violated federal law, and a weak federal government allowed them to do so.

Laws like the Voting Rights Act of 1965 finally brought badly needed federal oversight to state practice. Now that Act is basically being rescinded, on the grounds that “we’ve come a long way” and no one is racist anymore—or yes, there are still racists, but this Act isn’t the right tool to stop them. What is the right tool? No one knows. That part is left unexplored, as the Supreme Court takes away a established protection without offering a new one. It seems to be part of the de-regulation drive, the small government mania, that says the federal government should simply cease to exist and leave everything to the states. If the problem was that only nine states had to undergo oversight, why not simply extend it to all 50 states? It is impossible that the Court does not realize that it is returning those nine Southern states to the pre-1965 past, when they were free to prevent people from voting as they saw fit, without fear of retribution. Worse, they are introducing the 41 other states to that status. Now every state in the Union can defy federal law with little consequence.

Should states be punished for past actions? Yes, if those actions are still being attempted in the present.

Should only Southern states receive federal oversight? No; all states should be monitored for compliance with the Constitution.

Should we get rid of laws that have helped end discrimination simply because they are working? No—you don’t stop taking medicine because it is working. You take it until your disease is gone.

This decision is a blow to the Constitution. It is a vote against liberty and justice for all, for political equality, and for voting rights. It is  not completely unexpected—the principles of liberty and justice for all go against human nature, and there will always be people who don’t accept them. The United States was founded on its citizens’ decision to accept those principles, and fight for them. They can’t be inherited—they are too opposed to human nature to be inherited. Each generation must weigh them, accept them, and fight for them. That’s what keeps the United States going, that’s what makes us Americans: we inherit the fight for justice. Now is our time to fight for voting rights, in all our states, for all our citizens. It is our time to stake a claim for our founding principles, and live up to our responsibilities, by fighting across this country, wherever we live, for free access to polling places, reasonable wait times, sensible hours of operation for polling places, voting by registration alone (not voter IDs), clear ballots, and honest vote reporting. We will win this fight, because it speaks to our deepest sense of what is right. It may take a while, and it may be depressing to think that over 200 years since the Constitution was written we are still battling for basic rights, but we must remember what a great American once said: the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...