State Officials and Courts Interpret the 19th Amendment Differently

Allow image comparison in viewer

What is IIIF?

Collection:: Land of (Unequal) Opportunity: Documenting the Civil Rights Struggle in Arkansas
Title:: State Officials and Courts Interpret the 19th Amendment Differently
Publisher:: Fayetteville, Ark. : University of Arkansas Libraries
Date of Original:: 1920-10-24
Subject:: African Americans--Arkansas
Civil rights--Arkansas
Race discrimination--Arkansas
Segregation--Arkansas
Location:: United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044
Medium:: articles
Type:: Text
Format:: application/pdf
Description:: New York Times article highlighting legal rulings across the country pertaining to women's suffrage and the 19th Amendment. The second paragraph pertains to the Arkansas Attorney General rejecting Dr. Ida Joe Brooks's candidacy for state office.
Civil Rights -- Women's Suffrage -- Voting Rights -- Women -- Little Rock -- Pulaski
WATCH SUFFRAGE RULINGS Interpretation of Women's Rights in Elections to be Guarded. Announcement was made yesterday that the National American Women Suf- frage Association was watching all legal proceedings in States affected by the Nineteenth Amendment so that all doubts regarding the participation of women in the November elections would be removed. Attorney General Arbuckle of Arkan- sas telegraphed Mrs. Carnic Chapman Catt, President of the association, yes- terday that in his opinion women were not eligible to hold office in Arkansas, and that the Arkansas Secretary of State had declined to accept the certifi- cation of Dr. Ida Joe Brooks as the Re- publican candidate for the State Superin- tendent of Public Instruction. In Massachusetts the Ballot Law Com- mission had decided that American wo- men married to aliens prior to March, 1907, when Congress passed the law re- quiring married women to take the citi- zenship of their husbands, may retain their citizenship. Attorney General J. Weston Allen of Massachusetts has de- cided that women are eligible for ser- vice as election officials and have the right to sign nominating petitions. Attorney General Frank M. McAllister of Missouri has given the decision that women will not be obliged to cast their votes separately from men an declaring the law, passed by the Missouri Legis- lature to require them to vote on pink ballots, to violate the principle of se- crecy. Attorney General McAllister de- cided, however, that women are not eligible as candidates for the Legislature and that the four women nominated are not eligible to serve. The Missouri law requires that a member of the Legisla- ture must be a male voter and a voter for two years before the election. The New York Times Published: October 24, 1920
Metadata URL:: http://digitalcollections.uark.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Civilrights/id/1711
IIIF manifest:: https://digitalcollections.uark.edu/iiif/2/Civilrights:1711/manifest.json
Additional Rights Information:: Please contact Special Collections for information on copyright.
Original Collection:: The New York Times
Contributing Institution:: University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Libraries
Rights: