When Women Became No Longer Equal, Part 5: New Jersey Women Lose the Right to Vote, 1807
[A]ll inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote for Representatives in Council and Assembly; and also for all other public officers, that shall be elected by the people of the county at large.
The use of "all" and "they" was not an accident or a goof or an oversight. The inclusion of women--or, at least, of some women, those who owned property--was intentional. To make a big fuss about "taxation without representation" and then to deny taxpayers the right to vote would be hypocritical, right? At least in New Jersey, lawmakers thought it would be: and so the state "carried Revolutionary doctrine to its furthest—but logical—extreme." (The word "inhabitants" also included free Black men and unnaturalized "aliens" living within the state.)
Still, women were not enfranchised on quite the same basis as men--to be able to vote, a woman property owner needed to be unmarried.
On 18 November 1790, women's enfranchisement was made explicit, at least in seven of thirteen New Jersey counties. The Electoral Reform Law specifically referred to voters as "he or she."
Passage from the New Jersey Electoral Reform Law, 1790, identifying voters as "he or she" (from the Museum of the American Revolution, enrolled copy --page 9, if you care to look at the entire document) |
Passage from the New Jersey Electoral Reform Law, 1797, preserving "he or she" (from the Museum of the American Revolution. enrolled copy, page 10 if you care to look at the entire document) |
Whereas doubts have been raised and great diversities in practice obtained throughout the state in regard to the admission of aliens, females, and persons of color, or negroes to vote in elections, and also in regard to the mode of ascertaining the qualifications of voters in respect to estate.--And whereas, it is highly necessary to the safety, quiet, good order and dignity of the state, to clear up the said doubts by an act of the representatives of the people, declaratory of the true sense and meaning of the constitution, and to ensure its just execution in these particulars, according to the intent of the framers thereof, Therefore, . . . Be it enacted by the Council and General Assembly of this State, . . . no person shall vote in any state or county election . . . unless such person be a free, white, male citizen of this state of the age of twenty-one years worth fifty pounds. . . . (see page 2, if you check the enrolled document).
Justice Samuel Alito’s radical opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is noteworthy for its casual dismissal of the economic and medical hardships of women forced to carry pregnancies to term. But it’s also striking for the dismissal of any privacy or bodily autonomy interests for the mother, who is deemed a vessel for constitutional purposes largely because she was deemed a vessel when the relevant constitutional provisions were written and ratified. After Dobbs, women’s lives will be subject to more invasive ultrasound readings, denials of health care, whims of vigilante neighbors, and electronic surveillance. Women will be spied on, turned in, and arrested. States are attempting to restrict pregnant people’s right to travel and to receive medication through the mail. They are now less protected from their rapists and predators. Effective last weekend, millions of American women will be less safe from government surveillance and intervention everywhere, both in their physician’s offices and in the privacy of their own homes. (Article's original links retained.)