Shall not be infringed

Nothing wrong with being a mama's boy!

Reminder: We’re in Low Power Mode, as I take a few days off. During Low Power Mode, we skip the “7 other things” and revisit some “greatest hits” from the last 5 years of the newsletter. Here’s a great one from before 95% of you were subscribers!

Listen to your mother

It was 104 years ago this week that the Tennessee legislature ratified the 19th Amendment, making it the 36th state to do so, and thus enshrining voting rights* for women into the text of the U.S. Constitution.

You’ll notice that asterisk on the idea of voting rights*. I’ll address that below. But first, let’s mark the occasion with a nice story about Febb Burn, who was a 47-year-old widow in Niota, Tennessee at the time of that momentous vote.

Burn was a farmer, a college graduate, and a suffragist through and through. She was also the mother of 24-year-old Harry T. Burn, who happened to be a freshman delegate in the Tennessee House of Representatives at the time.

Niota is 135 miles from Nashville, but also a world away. So, when Harry headed west for the summer legislative session, his mother kept in touch via U.S. Mail.

She sent him one letter in July 1920, six handwritten pages, with news about the weather and the neighbors and their Ford automobile — and oh, by the way — she weaved in a few subtle notes advising how her son ought to vote on the most pressing matter of the session.

Again, that would be: “voting rights* for women.”

At the time, ratification of the 19th Amendment was incredibly contentious, and covered head to toe with the stink and muck of do-anything politics. There were 48 U.S. states then, and 75% had to ratify. While 35 states had signed off, the remainder were much harder sells. Tennessee was last-ditch.

Arguments against ratification in the South weren’t just over women’s rights; it was what might happen next — the idea that women would be more sympathetic to non-white people. For example, here's Burn’s mentor, Tennessee state Sen. Herschel M. Candler, making his reasoned arguments:

“I am here representing the mothers who are at home rocking the cradle, and not representing the low-neck and high-skirt variety … They would drag the womanhood of Tennessee down to the level of the Negro woman.”

Well, he sounds nice.

The vote was going to be close. The lobbying and arm-twisting were extreme. Still, Harry T. Burn was seen as a sure-thing vote against ratification, in line with Candler.

As fate would have it, the lower house of the Tennessee legislature was tied when it was Burn’s turn to vote. But in his vest pocket, he later explained, he kept the July letter from his mother. Among her entreaties:

• Page 2: “Hurrah, and vote for suffrage, and don’t keep them in doubt. I noticed [Candler’s] speech, it was very bitter.”

• Page 4: “I’ve been waiting to see how you stood but have not seen anything yet…”

• Page 6: “Don’t forget to be a good boy and help Mrs. ‘Thomas Catt’ ... With lots of love.”

(“Mrs. Thomas Catt” referred to Carrie Chapman Catt, one of the most prominent women’s suffrage leaders of the day. You can read Febb Burn’s full letter here.)

Carole Bucy, a history professor at Volunteer State Community College in Tennessee, described the scene in the legislature for NPR:

“The pressure in Tennessee’s House chamber that morning was intense, because every person sitting there knew, ‘It’s us [Tennessee] or [ratification] won’t happen.’

Harry Burn is called, and he—in what was regarded to be a fairly quiet voice—said, ‘Aye.’

Pandemonium is erupting. The ‘antis’ are furious. They thought they had this locked up!”

So that’s it. Harry T. Burn said, “aye,” and we have him to thank for being the deciding vote across the entire USA.

Afterward, he was accused of having accepted a bribe, but he insisted on his innocence. Instead, he said his mother’s letter had changed his mind.

“I knew that a mother’s advice is always safest for a boy to follow,” he said the next day. “And my mother wanted me to vote for ratification.”

The asterisk*

Obviously (I hope it’s obvious), I’m all for women voting—and men voting, and people of every race, color, creed, etc., etc., etc.

Even if you vehemently disagree with me on the issues, I think you should vote.

So, let's explain the asterisk. In short, of all the legal misconceptions that drive me a bit crazy, it’s when I hear people say we have a “constitutional right to vote” in the United States.

We don’t! We should, but we don't!

What we have instead are the constitutional rights not to have our votes taken away for certain specific reasons: on account of sex, or on account of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” or for age, provided you're over 18.

However, the government can -- and often does! -- take people's votes away for many other reasons.

A few examples: (a) status as a convicted felon, or (b) failing to have a proper postmark on your mail-in ballot, or (c) intentionally, to make it harder for people who might vote for another party to cast a ballot, or (d) just because.

Here's the U.S. Supreme Court spelling It out directly in Bush v. Gore (2000): “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”

Anyway, if I ran the zoo, I’d push for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote. Something like:

“The right of citizens who have attained the age of majority to vote shall not be infringed. The Congress shall enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

By the way, “shall not be infringed” (borrowed from the 2nd Amendment) and "shall enforce" are written to be extremely powerful—meaning more than just that Congress won’t infringe, but that it must not tolerate anyone else doing so, either.

It would be an asterisk-free amendment. Why not shoot for the stars?

I wonder what my mother would say?