Our Changing Constitution

ad. Some mention of the Nineteenth Amendment seems necessary, however, in any discussion of federal encroachment on state power, and i

he House of Representatives, "the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature." It was further provided that Senators should be chosen by the l

: Article I

: Article I

Article II,

rs in such elections was much debated in the Convention which framed the Constitution.[1] Some members were in favor of prescribing a property qualification and limiting the suffrage to freeholders. It was finally decided, however, to accept the qualifications prescribed by state law. In adopting this plan the Convention followed the line of l

Farrand, "Records of

p. 201

ualifications in the various states s

anwhile, the states had been abolishing property tests, and universal male suffrage had been written into state cons

ght of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Here was the entering wedge of federal interference. The amendments did not purport to deal with woman suffrage, but the pioneers of the suffrage movement thought they discovered in them a means of advancing their cause and lost no time in putting the matter to the test. Susan B. Anthony voted at Rochester, N.Y., in an election for a representat

States v. Anthony,

e of the Missouri constitution was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Missouri state courts decided against her, and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States where the decision of the state courts was affirmed.[1] The Supreme Court held in effect that whi

or v. Happersett

upreme Court held that the right to practise law in the state courts was not a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United State

dwell v. Illinoi

ose that the opposition presently began to take on the aspect of a forlorn hope. "Votes for Women" became an accomplished fact in many states, and appeared on the verge of accomplishment in most of the others. Some states, however, were still holding out

vote shall not be denied or abridged by the Un

ifteenth Amendment, merely substituting the word "sex" for

Amendment. It remains to consider just how far the amendment constitut

achment is more apparent than real. As has already been pointed out, this is essentially a national question, and the Constitution ad

ctions of state and local officials the situation is entirely different. That st

the elections for the particular states, would any man have hesitated to condemn it, both as an unwarra

1: Feder

inroad on state prerogatives would be hard to find. Control of the suffrage is one of the fundamental rights of a free state. It belonged to the North American states before their union, and was not surrendered to the National Government when the union was effected. Moreover, the encroachment has a very practical side.

its origin in conditions growing out of the Civil War, and claimed its justification in the necessity for protecting the freed slaves against hostile state action. It wa

ion through the separate states-was being pursued with signal success. The states were rapidly falling in line. Most of them had already granted woman suffrage or were ready to grant it. There was no over

nstitutional equilibrium?" The ultimate power lies with the voters, and the women with votes now equal or

th our dual system. To maintain the proper adjustment of such a machine requires intelligence of a high order. The machine will not run itself and male tinkers have abundantly demonstrated that it is not fool-proof. But something more is required th

ls that of the men, will they be as likely as men to look beyond the immediate social welfare problem to the gov

r these questions, but the