Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The 19th Explains: Women’s suffrage, our namesake amendment and its enduring lessons

Sojourner Truth, Susan B Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton statues in New York's Central Park

A statue of women's rights pioneers Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton stands in New York's Central Park.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Originally published by The 19th.

It’s been more than a century since women’s right to vote was ratified as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The work that led to what became known as the 19th Amendment — ratified August 18, 1920, and certified by the secretary of state eight days later — was a multigenerational fight, primarily led by women. It was not just done by the upper-class White women who have received the most attention, however. Black women, Indigenous women and other women of color, many of whom would wait years or decades to have equal access to the ballot, also played key roles. The same is true for queer women and gender-nonconforming people, some of whom sought personal and financial independence from the constraints that came with traditional marriage.

Historians in recent years have been untangling the full picture of the people behind the 19th Amendment and the complexities in why they organized. Several experts spoke with The 19th to talk about how the amendment came to be and to highlight some of its enduring lessons.


When did the fight for suffrage begin?

The founding myth of the movement to get women the vote often traces back to a women’s convention hosted in Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848.

But the fight goes back decades further. In some cases, women, including Black women, voted as early as 1776. But in the years that followed, state legislatures added language to their constitutions that specified that voters must be White and male.

The movement was at times fractious. Some women who were fighting for their right to vote tied that struggle to racial equality; others explicitly rejected that. One faction fought against slavery and then, after the Civil War, supported both Black men’s and women’s right to vote. Others didn’t believe Black men should be granted the right to vote before White women.

Some time after 1860, some Western states struck language from their state constitutions that referenced voters as male, effectively granting some women the right to vote. But it took decades before that right was expanded nationwide.

How big of a role did racism play in the amendment’s ratification?

Members of Congress were incredibly worried about Black women voting, according to Kimberly A. Hamlin, a history professor at Miami University in Ohio and author of “Free Thinker: Sex, Suffrage, and the Extraordinary Life of Helen Hamilton Gardener.” At least one lawmaker proposed changing the 19th Amendment language so that it applied to only White women.

Lawmakers expressed concern openly that a woman’s voting amendment could force them to recognize the 15th Amendment, which had granted Black men the right to vote — a right that in some places was severely restricted.

Hamlin said it’s hard to overstate the role of racism in the passage of the 19th Amendment.

“What everyone was saying is … we cannot have Black women voting in states where they make up a large portion of the population. And that was a sentiment voiced not just by White Southern Democrats, but by Northern politicians, by Eastern politicians as well,” she said. “That was the premier debate and stumbling block of the 19th Amendment.”

Hamlin said enough lawmakers eventually agreed to the 19th Amendment under an informal understanding that it would not expand the vote for Black people.

What was the role of queer people in the fight for women’s voting rights?

Many queer people were involved in the movement, according to Wendy Rouse, associate professor of history at San José State University and the author of “Public Faces, Secret Lives: A Queer History of the Women’s Suffrage Movement.”

Rouse uses the term “queer” in her research to encompass a broad spectrum of people who were not strictly heterosexual or cisgender. That includes people who today might have identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, asexual, aromantic, pansexual, non-binary, gender queer or gender-nonconforming.

Rouse said queer people came to support women’s suffrage for different reasons.

“It’s important to understand that the ability to not get married requires them to be financially, economically independent of men. So that meant that they would need equal access to jobs, and they would need equal access to education, and then equal pay,” she said. “And they can't have any of those things without the vote to fight for those things. So for queer women, women who didn't want to get married, women who were gay, women who were gender-nonconforming, they require the vote as a first step toward these other things.”

Another key issue for some queer suffragists was dress reform — the movement to wear bloomers or pants instead of dresses, heavy petticoats and corsets. The fact that some gender-nonconforming suffragists wore bloomers or dressed like men at the time was a source of criticism from some anti-suffragists, who used the desire for dress reform to paint some of its supporters as deviant. The broader movement eventually abandoned the cause of dress reform, and some suffragists felt ostracized by this.

Some queer suffragists lived private lives with romantic partners of the same gender but kept those details from their public lives as a form of strategy and protection from homophobia and other forms of discrimination. Rouse said there has been an attempt by some historians and descendents of suffragists to erase the queer history or at least gloss over it.

”Queer people have always existed, and we need to show that throughout the long history that we teach our students and that we teach the next generation,” she said. “Otherwise the process of erasure just continues if we choose not to talk about it.”

Why is the 19th Amendment still relevant today?

The political power that comes with equal access to the ballot is the enduring lesson of the 19th Amendment. It’s a power that continued to be withheld from some Black women and women of color who worked for the amendment’s 1920 ratification.

Poll taxes and literacy tests that aimed to exclude Black voters persisted for decades — until the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Liette Gidlow, professor of history at Wayne State University and author of “The Big Vote: Gender, Consumer Culture, and the Politics of Exclusion, 1890s-1920s,” has examined the ways in which some Black women sought to organize and vote despite the barriers.

“Those experiences of African-American women trying to vote in the South after 1920, and often not being able to, resonate with us today in that they show that the work is never done, that this country has a long history of people gaining rights and then losing rights,” she said. “It's not a narrative of progress. It's not a story of ever-expanding freedom. Sometimes, Americans gain rights and sometimes they lose them.”

Gidlow said it’s important to note that Black women tried to vote in the immediacy of 1920. Sometimes they were successful and other times they were not, according to her research. But the end result, a century in the making, has been an “electoral powerhouse” that had a key role in electing the country’s first Black president and more recently helping Democrats gain control of the U.S. Senate in 2021.

“African American women have made themselves into, I would argue, the most powerful segment of the electorate today,” she said.

One reason some women organized for suffrage was body politics — the ability for people to make decisions about their own bodies, according to Kate Clarke Lemay, a historian at the National Portrait Gallery who has studied the visual culture of the suffragist movement with her book, “Votes for Women: A Portrait of Persistence.”

“Women's movement — being outside of the home — to me is body politics,” she said. “Where do you see women's bodies and how are they on display? What can they do with their bodies? Who can they touch with their bodies?”

Hamlin said that included advocates for dress reform and women who were part of an effort to raise the age of consent to have sex; in at least 35 states, that age was set at 10 to 12 years old. In several states, according to Hamlin, men raped girls under 16 years old and claimed the girls gave consent.

“This was really the link to activists to show, ‘Oh, we need a voice in politics. Our husbands, sons and brothers are not enacting legislation with our best interests at heart,’” said Hamlin.

The focus on body politics has relevancy after the Supreme Court recently overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that enshrined federal abortion rights.

“An important piece of 19th Amendment history is that women . . . wanted bodily autonomy,” she said. “That is really an important part of the history that often gets overlooked. It's an especially important part of the history now in a post-Roe era.”

How did the organizing behind women’s right to vote inform future activist movements?

Some of the women who marched and protested for suffrage are credited with creating lobbying tactics that are used today, according to Lemay. She said the generation of suffragists who organized at the beginning of the 20th century in particular kept “meticulous” cards with information that tracked their visits with lawmakers.

“They were like statisticians. They had all these maps and they were really, really visual in some of their tactics,” she said.

A parade for women’s suffrage in Washington, D.C., in 1913 was one of the first protests of its kind. They also in 1917 pioneered picketing outside the White House.

Along the way came artwork on fans, party hats and plates that promoted women’s right to vote. Organizers also commissioned intricate illustrations, especially a so-called second generation of suffragists who sometimes used more aggressive moves like a hunger strike after arrests.

“That second generation was really smart about taking advantage of the kind of different media that they had at hand,” she said.

We also want to hear from you: What are your questions about how our democracy operates now? Tell us what you want to know about laws about voting, about misinformation and the ballot box, about how your local election runs.


Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less