1911 California Proposition 4

Referendum granting women the right to vote From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposition 4 of 1911 (or Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 8) was an amendment of the Constitution of California that granted women the right to vote in the state for the first time. Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 8 was sponsored by Republican State Senator Charles W. Bell from Pasadena, California.[1] It was adopted by the California State Legislature and approved by voters in a referendum held as part of a special election on October 10, 1911.

Quick facts Results, Choice ...
1911 California Proposition 4
October 10, 1911
Results
Choice
Votes %
Yes 125,037 50.73%
No 121,450 49.27%
Close

An earlier attempt to enfranchise women had been rejected by California voters in 1896,[2] but in 1911 California became the sixth U.S. state to adopt the reform.[3] Nine years later in 1920, women's suffrage was constitutionally recognized at the federal level by the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment prohibited both the federal government and all of the states from denying women the right to vote.

Background

1896 rejection of women’s suffrage by California voters

During the November 3, 1896 General Election, California voters rejected Constitutional Amendment No. 6 which would have given women the right to vote. The suffrage amendment was defeated by a double-digit margin with 44.6 percent support.[4] Notable counties voting against giving women the right to vote included San Francisco County (26.1% support), San Mateo County (29.9% support), Marin County (30.8% support), Contra Costa County (37.7% support), Sacramento County (40.0% support), Sonoma County (40.4% support), Alameda County (40.7% support), and Santa Clara County (49.0% support).[5]

Both the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle opposed Constitutional Amendment No. 6 which would have given women the right to vote.[6][7]

1911 Proposition 4 election

Editorials and opinion pieces against women’s suffrage

In 1911, there were several editorials and opinion pieces published by the Los Angeles Times against women’s suffrage, including Proposition 4.

A Los Angeles Times editorial dated January 21, 1911, stated that “women are incapable of physically dominating men. By their inferior physical strength they are unable to compete on an equal basis in any line of endeavor where ability is determined by sheer bodily prowess. All positions of physical power - such as in our police forces, our armies and our navies - will necessarily be filled by men. In other words the enforcement of all law must inevitably rest with men. No law or ordinance could be effectually upheld except through the willingness of men to uphold it. And no matter what words were written on the statute books of any State, if the physical power (which is the masculine power) behind it were withdrawn, the law would immediately become void and impotent. Therefore in equal suffrage we have the spectacle of women desiring to pass laws which they are physically incapable of upholding, and laws which they admit the men do not want.”[8]

A Los Angeles Times editorial dated August 19, 1911, stated that: “Possession of the ballot will not help woman, socially or industrially. It will make exactions upon her time and strength. It will invade the home and destroy its charm. It will not result in wiser laws or better government.”[9]

A Los Angeles Times editorial dated September 22, 1911, stated that: “The working man - whether he be a Republican, a Democrat or a Socialist - who walks along Broadway or Spring Street on Saturday afternoon and sees thousands of fashionably-attired girls and women of mature age parading in autos and making woman-suffrage speeches says to himself, ‘Are these butterflies to be entrusted with the task of making laws for me?’” The editorial also stated that “[t]he Times opposes woman suffrage because it does not believe in either the justice or the expediency of burdening the women of California with the duty of voting.”[10]

In a Los Angeles Times opinion piece dated October 1, 1911, Democratic State Senator J.B. Sanford, who was Chairman of the Democratic Caucus of California at the time,[11] called women’s suffrage a “disease,” a “political hysteria,” a “cruel and intolerable burden,” and a “backward step in the progress of civilization.”[12] In the same opinion piece published by the Los Angeles Times, Democratic State Senator Sanford also used homophobic language in writing the following about certain classes of people who advocate women’s suffrage: “It is the mannish female politician and the little effeminate, sissy man, and the woman who is dissatisfied with her lot and sorry that she was born a woman.”[13]

Ballot arguments

The ballot argument in favor of Proposition 4 was written by Republican State Senator C.W. Bell and Republican Assemblyman H.G. Cattell, both from southern California. The ballot argument against Proposition 4 was written by Democratic State Senator J.B. Sanford from northern California.[14]

Results

Proposition 4 was narrowly approved by California voters with 50.7 percent support.[15] Election evening results appeared to indicate that Proposition 4 would be defeated as there was strong opposition from the San Francisco Bay Area.[16] However, late returns from the agricultural and rural parts of the state overcame majority opposition from Bay Area cities such as San Francisco and Oakland.[17]

The county with the highest level of support for Proposition 4 was Modoc County with 70.5% in favor, while the county with the lowest level was San Francisco County, with 38.1% in favor.[15]

The following table details the results by county:[15]

More information County, Yes ...
County Yes No
# % # %
Alameda 10,627 45.36 12,802 54.64
Alpine 26 61.90 16 38.10
Amador 478 43.18 629 56.82
Butte 1,829 62.96 1,076 37.04
Calaveras 736 60.48 481 39.52
Colusa 438 50.64 427 49.36
Contra Costa 1,569 50.34 1,548 49.66
Del Norte 305 60.64 198 39.36
El Dorado 601 60.71 389 39.29
Fresno 3,192 55.90 2,518 44.10
Glenn 614 62.59 367 37.41
Humboldt 1,815 63.11 1,061 36.89
Imperial 619 66.63 310 33.37
Inyo 400 64.52 220 35.48
Kern 1,760 52.27 1,607 47.73
Kings 708 57.14 531 42.86
Lake 471 58.00 341 42.00
Lassen 339 63.36 196 36.64
Los Angeles 27,391 55.20 22,228 44.80
Madera 578 60.59 376 39.41
Marin 1,102 41.55 1,550 58.45
Mariposa 164 52.06 151 47.94
Mendocino 1,285 50.23 1,273 49.77
Merced 798 66.00 411 34.00
Modoc 423 70.50 177 29.50
Mono 109 57.98 79 42.02
Monterey 1,186 49.92 1,190 50.08
Napa 1,001 54.58 833 45.42
Nevada 869 55.56 695 44.44
Orange 1,787 49.46 1,826 50.54
Placer 1,133 59.98 756 40.02
Plumas 383 62.89 226 37.11
Riverside 1,955 58.87 1,366 41.13
Sacramento 3,220 51.56 3,025 48.44
San Benito 560 58.27 401 41.73
San Bernardino 2,548 53.06 2,254 46.94
San Diego 3,331 57.48 2,464 42.52
San Francisco 21,919 38.08 35,635 61.92
San Joaquin 2,417 54.08 2,052 45.92
San Luis Obispo 1,284 55.51 1,029 44.49
San Mateo 1,187 44.47 1,482 55.53
Santa Barbara 1,396 53.82 1,198 46.18
Santa Clara 4,762 60.42 3,120 39.58
Santa Cruz 1,517 61.89 934 38.11
Shasta 1,170 66.78 582 33.22
Sierra 279 60.52 182 39.48
Siskiyou 1,126 60.05 749 39.95
Solano 1,438 55.52 1,152 44.48
Sonoma 2,461 52.01 2,271 47.99
Stanislaus 1,556 67.01 766 32.99
Sutter 381 57.55 281 42.45
Tehama 781 64.12 437 35.88
Trinity 343 69.57 150 30.43
Tulare 1,935 64.61 1,060 35.39
Tuolumne 561 56.72 428 43.28
Ventura 816 48.80 856 51.20
Yolo 859 55.42 691 44.58
Yuba 499 55.69 397 44.31
Total 125,037 50.73 121,450 49.27
Close

Progressive Era of Reforms

Women's suffrage was a part of the Progressive Era of reforms. On the same election day that Proposition 4 was approved, voters enacted the modern system of direct democracy in California, by approving Proposition 7, which introduced the initiative and the optional referendum powers, and Proposition 8, which introduced the recall of public officials.

Constitutional Suffrage Reforms Excluded

While Proposition 4 gave women the right to vote in California, the proposition did not alter the existing discriminatory provisions in the California Constitution limiting the right to vote, including prohibiting natives of China from voting, prohibiting the mentally disabled from voting, and prohibiting persons from voting who were unable to read the Constitution in the English language and write their name.[18]

See also

References

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI