A Complete Nineteenth Amendment

I long to hear that you have declared an independancy—and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If perticuliar care and attention is not paid to the Laidies we are determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.

A blog's daily Supreme Court history entry allows commentary and someone else has kept track of Supreme Court cases too. Summer generally involves citing circuit judge rulings.

Today's entry honors the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. Abigail Adams finally had her day. John Adams laughed her off at the time. 

To remind you, the text is (it did not separate things into sections [compare the 13th] for some reason): 

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Rick Hasen and Leah Litman wrote an article supporting a "thick" version of the amendment. The amendment (see also, 14A, sec. 2) guards against "abridging" the right to vote on account of sex. The word suggests a broader limit than simple "denial." 

There are many practices that in purpose and effect deny and abridge voting rights on account of sex. Congress has the authority to pass laws to deal with these problems. For instance, if a policy harms working women or stay-at-home mothers. 

"Voting" here can and should be defined broadly to include jury duty and office holding. And, the policies need not only harm voting. Things tend not to be put in such clean boxes. 

The "thick" view also understands voting rights for women as part of a comprehensive whole. For instance, the article cites Adkins v. Children's Hospital, which shortly after ratification struck down a minimum wage law that applied to women:

In view of the great—not to say revolutionary—changes which have taken place since that utterance, in the contractual, political, and civil status of women, culminating in the Nineteenth Amendment, it is not unreasonable to say that these differences have now come almost, if not quite, to the vanishing point.

The government denied women the right to vote because of the belief women were not truly equal citizens. Men alone had the ability and duty to take part in public life and government. The Nineteenth Amendment helps call out this sentiment.  

You do not have to go all the way. A person could still argue that women had certain disabilities and inequalities that warranted women alone to have a minimum wage. More equitably, you can argue a minimum wage is acceptable across the board. 

A lower court case that upheld abortion rights before Roe v. Wade cited the Nineteenth Amendment as part of a series of developments that changed things:

The changed role of women in society and the changed attitudes toward them reflect the societal judgment that women can competently order their own lives and that they are the appropriate decisionmakers about matters affecting their fundamental concerns. 

[Connecticut passed a new anti-abortion law, leading to a second case by that name. Judge Newman, who concurred in the first case, wrote another opinion also upholding abortion rights. It was that opinion that was influential to multiple justices in the majority of Roe v. Wade. But, the first warrants respect as well.]

There was a dissenting view from the beginning that citizen rights included the right to vote for women. Likewise, people argued that control of basic decision-making, including reproductive liberty was necessary. 

Time passed and more people accepted this to be true. The Nineteenth Amendment on its own need not be the only thing we use to protect the rights of women. 

Nonetheless, it helps. The dissent in Dobbs honors the right of individuals, including "women—to make their own choices and chart their own futures." Full citizenship, including the right to vote, included.  

A final thought reaffirms the unity. There are fewer women than men in political office even today in various places (e.g., the Congress), and those who are there are burdened by societal practices. 

Women run for office later, sometimes choose political careers over motherhood, and continue to be burdened by various inequalities. These things "deny or abridge" on account of sex and are 19th Amendment concerns.  

Our republican system of government is a complex whole. The First Amendment provides important protections necessary for informed voting. Sometimes, they can be burdened on account of sex, including if people think women should not speak in church. 

A complete view of the 19A deals with all things that factor into equal suffrage. It is part of a wider constitutional whole. There is a continual need -- over one hundred years later -- to honor it in full. 

Voting for Harris/Walz will help!