Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T21:09:51.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Women, Policy, and Party, 1920–1970: A Rational Choice Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Anna L. Harvey
Anna L. Harvey
Affiliation:
New York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The 1970s saw a dramatic increase in the success rate of U.S. women's organizations pursuing congressional support of legislation designed to remove barriers to the progress of women in economic, political, and social arenas. While women's organizations, including both older organizations such as the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs (NFBPWC) and newer organizations such as the National Organization for Women (NOW), had lobbied Congress before 1970, that year saw their first major lobbying success. House passage of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in 1970 was followed in 1972 by full congressional passage of the ERA and Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act (prohibiting sex discrimination in education), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Women's Educational Equity Act in 1974, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the (unprecedented) congressional extension of the ratification period for the ERA in 1978, as well as a host of measures prohibiting sex discrimination in federal programs. The legislative success of women's organizations has continued, albeit with some fits and starts, into the 1980s and 1990s with pension equity reform, child support enforcement legislation, child care subsidies, and parental leave legislation as important examples. As documented by numerous scholars, in all these cases women's organizations provided the primary lobbying support for the successful legislation.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in American Political Development , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , Fall 1997 , pp. 292 - 324
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See, for instance, Silverberg, Helene N., “Political Organization and the Origin of Political Identity: The Emergence and Containment of Gender in American Politics” (Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1988)Google Scholar; Costain, Anne N., “Women's Claims as a Special Interest,” in Mueller, Carol, ed., The Politics of the Gender Gap (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1988)Google Scholar.

2. Histories of the legislative activities of women's organizations during the 1920s include Chambers, Clarke A., Seedtime of Reform: American Social Service and Social Action 1918–1933 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1963)Google Scholar; Lemons, J. Stanley, The Woman Citizen: Social Feminism in the 1920s (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975)Google Scholar; Cott, Nancy F., The Grounding of Modern Feminism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Muncy, Robyn, Creating a Female Dominion in American Reform, 1890–1935 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991)Google Scholar; and Skocpol, Theda, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992)Google Scholar.

3. Muncy, Creating a Female Dominion, 154–55; Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, 535–36.

4. See Bell, Winifred, Aid to Dependent Children (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965)Google Scholar; Hanson, Russell L., “Federal Statebuilding During the New Deal: The Transition from Mothers' Aid to Aid to Dependent Children,” in Greenberg, Edward S. and Mayer, Thomas F., eds., Changes in the State (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1990), 93–114Google Scholar; Nelson, Barbara J., “The Origins of the Two-Channel Welfare State: Workmen's Compensation and Mothers' Aid,” in Gordon, Linda, eds., Women, the State, and Welfare (Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990), 123–51Google Scholar; Howard, Christopher, “Sowing the Seeds of ‘Welfare’: The Transformation of Mothers' Pensions, 1900–1940,” Journal of Policy History 4 (1992): 188–227Google Scholar; Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, 534–39; Mettler, Suzanne Bridget, “Divided Citizens: State Building, Federalism and Gender in the New Deal” (Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1994)Google Scholar.

5. See Mettler, “Divided Citizens.” Other setbacks for women during the New Deal included Section 213 of the 1932 National Economy Act, which penalized the federally employed wives of federal employees (repealed in 1937), the approximately 25 percent of the National Recovery Act codes which allowed lesser wages for women, the 1934 decision of the Attorney General that sex discrimination in the civil service was legal, the refusal of the War Manpower Commission to appoint women between 1941 and 1945, and its concomitant refusal to consider the problems of job training, flextime, and daycare for women wartime workers. Ware, Susan, Beyond Suffrage: Women in the New Deal (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981), 79, 90Google Scholar; Sealander, Judith, “Moving Painfully and Uncertainly: Policy Formation and ‘Women's Issues,’ 1940–1980,” in Critchlow, Donald T. and Hawley, Ellis W., eds., Federal Social Policy: The Historical Dimension (University Park, Pa.: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1988), 79–96Google Scholar.

6. On the interim period, see Sealander, “Moving Painfully and Uncertainly”; Kaledin, Eugenia, Mothers and More: American Women in the 1950s (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1984)Google Scholar; Harrison, Cynthia, On Account of Sex: The Politics of Women's Issues 1945–1968 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Zelman, Patricia, Women, Work, and National Policy: The Kennedy-Johnson Years (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1982)Google Scholar.

7. Freeman, Jo, The Politics of Women's Liberation: A Case Study of an Emerging Social Movement and Its Relation to the Policy Process (New York: David McKay, 1975), 171–78Google Scholar.

8. Two leading advocates of the policy network approach for the 1920s are Robyn Muncy in Creating a Female Dominion and Theda Skocpol in Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, although Skocpol distinguishes her argument by emphasizing the role that women's organizations also played in mobilizing their members to educate public opinion. Both scholars also rely somewhat on a “climate” explanation for the ebb and flow in the success rate of the policy network (see below). On the late 1960s, see Freeman, The Politics ofz Women's Liberations, chap. 7; Freeman's text is also in part a “climate” explanation.

9. Thus, for example, Skocpol suggests that the women's organizations composing the first policy network grew weaker over the course of the 1920s; Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, 519.

10. For the 1920s, see Chafe, William H., The American Woman: Her Changing Social, Economic, and Political Roles, 1920–1970 (London: Oxford University Press, 1972), 29Google Scholar; Muncy, Creating a Female Dominion, 129–35; Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, 521. For the 1960s and 1970s, see Freeman, The Politics of Women's Liberation, 229.

11. For the 1920s see Chafe, The American Woman, 29–30; Lemons, The Woman Citizen, 157, 174; McGerr, Michael, “Political Style and Women's Power, 1830–1930,” Journal of American History 77 (12 1990): 864–85, 882Google Scholar; Muncy, Creating a Female Dominion, 126; Flexner, Eleanor, Century of Struggle: The Woman's Rights Movement in the United States (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975), 338Google Scholar; Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, 521. On the 1970s, see Silverberg, “Political Organization and the Origin of Political Identity.”

12. See Ware, Beyond Suffrage, for a discussion of the women's New Deal policy network. Also see Ware, Holding Their Own: American Women in the 1930s.

13. Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, 520–21.

14. Silverberg, “Political Organization and the Origin of Political Identity,” 53–58.

15. Ibid., 61–65; Esther Peterson oral history interview, 23, 55, 59, 71, 93, John F. Kennedy Library.

16. Mayhew, David R., Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations 1946–1990 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991), 157Google Scholar.

17. Ibid., 154.

18. Ibid., 81–91.

19. “Republicans Sweep Maine by 65,000, With Women Casting a Heavy Vote,” New York Times, September 14, 1920, 1; Warren G. Harding to Anne M. Gannett, Augusta, Maine, September 13, 1920, Warren G. Harding Papers, reel 44, frame 513; Anne M. Gannett to Warren G. Harding, September 14, 1920, Warren G. Harding Papers, reel 44, frames 511–12; Simon Wolf to Warren G. Harding, September 14, 1920, Warren G. Harding Papers, reel 44, frame 520.

20. “Pinchot by 15,000, Machine Hard Hit in Pennsylvania,” New York Times, May 18, 1922, 1; Lape, Esther Everett, “Women's Vote Revolt,” New York Times, 05 28, 1922, VII, 2Google Scholar; “Progressives Seek to Reform Party,” New York Times, May 19, 1922, 19.

21. Harriet Taylor Upton to Warren G. Harding, May 6, 1922, Warren G. Harding Papers, reel 197, frames 254–57; Harriet Taylor Upton to George Christian, May 17, 1922, Warren G. Harding Papers, reel 236, frames 853–54; Warren G. Harding to Harriet Taylor Upton, May 18, 1922, Warren G. Harding Papers, reel 236, frame 855; “Republicans Find Young Men in Revolt,” New York Times, June 9, 1922, 2.

22. Warren G. Harding to Harriet Taylor Upton, September 30, 1922, Warren G. Harding Papers, reel 232, frame 685; Kauffman, Reginald Wright, “Her Whims as Voter,” New York Times, 10 1, 1922, VIII, 3Google Scholar.

23. Michelet, Simon, “American Women at the Ballot,” 10 5, 1924Google Scholar, Warren G. Harding Papers, reel 132, frame 473; “Says Women's Votes Could Decide the Issue,” New York Times, October 5, 1924, 8. See “To Bring Out Stay-At-Home Vote,” New York Times, May 11, 1924, I pt. 2, 5, for an earlier analysis done by Michelet which was commissioned by the Republican National Committee.

24. Edward T. Clark to Simon Michelet, April 3, 1926, Calvin Coolidge Papers, reel 132, frame 473; Simon Michelet to Edward T. Clark, April 5, 1926, Calvin Coolidge Papers, reel 132, frame 473.

25. “Republicans Seek Stay-At-Home Vote,” New York Times, April 26, 1926, 5.

26. Edward T. Clark to Simon Michelet, April 6, 1926, Calvin Coolidge Papers, reel 132, file 473.

27. “Women Voters in Ohio,” New York Times, February 25, 1928, 16.

28. Clara Burdette, President, California Federation of Women's Clubs, quoted in Press Release, Hoover-for-President New York State Committee, May 1, 1928, Campaign and Transition Papers, box 210, Herbert Hoover Papers, Hoover Library; “Says Women Are Backing Hoover,” New York Times, May 2, 1928, 17.

29. William H. Hill, President, New York State Hoover-for-President Committee, in Press Release, New York State Hoover-for-President Committee, May 9, 1928, Campaign and Transition Papers, box 210, Herbert Hoover Papers, Hoover Library.

30. “This Year's Woman Vote to Set a High Record,” New York Times, October 21, 1928, X, 8.

31. Estelle MacChesney Northam, Assistant Director, Hoover-Curtis Organization Bureau, Western Headquarters, Republican National Committee, 1928, Lou Henry Hoover Papers, box 25, Hoover Library.

32. Minerva Allen, President, Kentucky Women's Republican League, to Herbert Hoover. January 2, 1929, Campaign and Transition Papers, box 87, Herbert Hoover Papers, Hoover Library.

33. “Gains in Congress Will Help Hoover,” New York Times, November 8, 1928, 9.

34. Nathan William MacChesney, Director, Hoover-Curtis Organization Bureau, to Herbert Hoover, November 7, 1928, Campaign and Transition Papers, box 163, Herbert Hoover Papers, Hoover Library.

35. Herbert Hoover form letter to Republican National Committeewomen, November 13, 1928, Campaign and Transition Papers, box 75, Herbert Hoover Papers, Hoover Library.

36. Herbert Hoover form letter to Republican State Committeewomen, November 12, 1928, Campaign and Transition Papers, box 75, Herbert Hoover Papers, Hoover Library.

37. “Figures 39,000,000 Voted on Tuesday,” New York Times, November 11, 1928, 11.

38. “Fisher Analyzes Hoover's Victory,” New York Times, November 25, 1928, II, 1.

39. J. Bennett Gordon to Lawrence Richey, January 3, 1929, Campaign and Transition Papers, box 157, Herbert Hoover Papers, Hoover Library.

40. J. Bennett Gordon, Research Bureau, Republican National Committee, form letter to Miss Mary B. Sleeth, November 12, 1928, Campaign and Transition Papers, box 157, Herbert Hoover Papers, Hoover Library.

41. Ibid.

42. J. Bennett Gordon to Lawrence Richey, January 3, 1929, Campaign and Transition Papers, box 157, Herbert Hoover Papers, Hoover Library.

43. Ibid.

44. Harris, Louis, Is There a Republican Majority? Political Trends, 1952–1956 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1954), 104Google Scholar. The estimated increase in turnout for women between 1948 and 1952 was 22 percent; the comparable figure for men was 11 percent. Roper-NBC surveys in November of 1952 showed that women preferred Eisenhower to Stevenson by a margin of 17 percentage points; the comparable figure for men was 5 percentage points. Ibid., 108, 116.

45. Silverberg, “Political Organization,” 42.

46. Harris, Is There a Republican Majority?, 117.

47. Stephen Mitchell, “Report to Members of the Democratic National Committee and State Chairmen,” January 20, 1953, Democratic National Committee (DNC) Papers, box 113, John F. Kennedy Library.

48. Transcript of Democratic National Executive Committee (DNEC) meeting, April 1, 1953, DNC Papers, box 119, 97, 103–8, 111, John F. Kennedy Library.

49. Paul Butler, in transcript of DNEC meeting, November 27, 1956, DNC Papers, box 119, 177, John F. Kennedy Library.

50. Ibid., pp. 169–79, 187; Transcript of DNC meeting, February 15, 1957, DNC Papers, box 119, 85–88, John F. Kennedy Library.

51. Katie Louchheim to Paul Butler, confidential memo, June 26, 1957, DNC Papers, box 442, John F. Kennedy Library.

52. Office of Women's Activities, “Report to the DNC on Women's Activities,” February 21, 1958, DNC Papers, box 121, John F. Kennedy Library; Office of Women's Activities, “Candidate Memo-Gram,” 1958, DNC Papers, box 442, John F. Kennedy Library.

53. Silverberg, “Political Organization,” 45.

54. Ibid., 42.

55. Clayton Fritchey to John F. Kennedy, July 22, 1963, Presidential Subject Files, box 374, John F. Kennedy Library.

56. Esther Peterson oral history interview, 59, 71, 93, John F. Kennedy Library; Silverberg, “Political Organization,” 61.

57. Esther Peterson oral history interview, 93, John F. Kennedy Library; Silverberg, “Political Organization,” 79–80.

58. See Mayhew, David R., Congress: The Electoral Connection (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), 16Google Scholar; Aldrich, John H., Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 14Google Scholar; Hansen, John Mark, Gaining Access: Congress and the Farm Lobby, 1919–1981 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991)Google Scholar, for similar criticisms.

59. For an overview of the large literature on the collective action problem in voting see Aldrich, John, “Rational Choice and Turnout,” American Journal of Political Science 37 (02 1993): 246–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60. This triad of selective benefits for political participation dates to Wilson's, James Q.Political Organizations (New York: Basic Books, 1975)Google Scholar. For a more recent discussion of selective versus collective benefits in voting see Rosenstone, Steven J. and Hansen, John Mark, Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993)Google Scholar.

61. Many scholars have written and continue to write about the potential for solidary benefits from voting; see for example Aldrich, Why Parties?, 45–50; Rosenstone and Hansen, Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America; Uhlaner, Carole J., “Rational Turnout: The Neglected Role of Groups,” American Journal of Political Science 33 (05 1989): 390–422Google Scholar; Glazer, Amihai, “A New Theory of Voting: Why Vote When Millions of Others Do,” Theory and Decision 22 (05 1987): 257–70Google Scholar; Knack, Stephen, “Civic Norms, Social Sanctions, and Voter Turnout,” Rationality and Society 4 (04 1992): 133–56Google Scholar.

62. Rosenstone and Hansen, Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in America.

63. The term and its implications are defined by Schlesinger, Joseph A. in “The Primary Goals of Political Parties: A Clarification of Positive Theory,” American Political Science Review 69 (09 1975): 840–49Google Scholar. Schlesinger includes in this category both candidates and those professional politicians such as party elites who run their campaigns. Also see Schlesinger, , Political Parties and the Winning of Office (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

64. Aldrich, Why Parties?, 180–93.

65. Schlesinger, “The Primary Goals of Political Parties”; id., Political Parties and the Winning of Office; Aldrich, Why Parties?, 19–21, 180–93. The important role of benefit-seeking as opposed to office-seeking elites was also anticipated by Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy, 249. A literature also exists on the role of interest group entrepreneurs in solving the collective action problem more generally; see Wagner, Richard, “Pressure Groups and Political Entrepreneurs: A Review Article,” Papers on Non-Market Decision Making, ed. Tullock, Gordon (Charlottesville, VA: The Thomas Jefferson Center for Political Economy, 1966), 161–70Google Scholar; Salisbury, Robert H., “An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups,” Midwest Journal of Political Science 13 (02 1969): 1–32Google Scholar; Frohlich, Norman and Oppenheimer, Joe A., “I Get By With a Little Help From My Friends,” World Politics 23 (10 1970): 104–20Google Scholar; Frohlich, Norman, Oppenheimer, Joe A., and Young, Oran, Political Leadership and Collective Goods (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1971)Google Scholar.

66. Benefit seekers can also donate money directly to candidates and parties without seeking to coordinate group voting. However, this is typically only the case for groups invoking few members, which do not face collective action problems. Those groups which are large require the expenditure of resources merely to solicit funds, and such groups will usually be cash-poor and vote-rich. Berry, Jeffrey, The Interest Group Society (New York: HarperCollins, 1989)Google Scholar.

67. Uhlaner, “Rational Turnout,” 392.

68. Frohlich and Oppenheimer, “I Get By With a Little Help From My Friends”; Uhlaner, “Rational Turnout,” 406. This point obviously applies with most force to the (possibly quite small) circle of group members responsible for choosing leaders of the group.

69. This and the next two paragraphs are from Harvey, Anna L., “The Political Consequences of Suffrage Exclusion: Organizations, Institutions, and the Electoral Mobilization of Women,” Social Science History 20 (Spring 1996): 97–132Google Scholar.

70. Ibid.; Harvey, Votes Without Leverage: Women in American Electoral Politics, 1920–1970 (New York: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming), chaps. 3–4.

71. See above, fn. 6–8.

72. Friedan, Betty, It Changed My Life: Writings on the Women's Movement (New York: Random House, 1976), 80–86Google Scholar.

73. Ibid., p. 101.

74. New York Times, September 20, 1970, 98.

75. Friedan, It Changed My Life, 101.

76. Silverberg, “Political Organization,” 153–206.

77. Ibid., 223–69.

78. King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994), 223–4Google Scholar.

79. Harvey, Votes Without Leverage, chap. 5.

80. Ibid., chaps. 5–6.

81. “Women's Progress in Year Applauded,” New York Times, August 26, 1921, 3; “Still Human Beings,” New York Times, August 27, 1921, 8; September 16, 1925 Executive Committee meeting, in Papers of the League of Women Voters, pt. I, reel 2, frame 728; September 17, 1926 Board meeting, in Papers of the League of Women Voters, pt. I, reel 3, frames 676, 675.

82. “Mack Senate Boom Started by Women,” New York Times, February 8, 1920, 12; “Puts Women On Committees,” New York Times, February 23, 1920, 15; “Two Women Urged on ‘Big Four’ Slate,” New York Times, February 24, 1920, 1.

83. “Legislature Opens Session With Rush,” New York Times, January 5, 1922, 4; “Get Bill for Party Committee Women,” New York Times, January 26, 1922, 19; “Report Will Favor Women,” New York Times, February 8, 1922, 19.

84. “County Committees to Be Half Women,” New York Times, August 6, 1922, 10.

85. “Platform Pleases Republican Women,” New York Times, September 29, 1922, 2.

86. “Women Seek Places in State Committee,” New York Times, June 10, 1923, II, 1; “Republican Women To Press Demands,” New York Times, June 14, 1923, 10; “State Republicans Dodge Dry Question,” New York Times, June 15, 1923, 1.

87. “Lehman Named by Republicans, Too; Smith is Assailed,” New York Times, September 30, 1923, 2.

88. “Equality Planned on State Committees,” New York Times, February 14, 1924, 19.

89. “Stand by Film Censorship,” New York Times, February 29, 1924, 19; “Mrs. Sabin Replies to Mrs. Blair's Charge,” New York Times, June 22, 1924, 24.

90. “Women Play a Big Part,” New York Times, September 24, 1924, 2; “Anti-Klan Forces Win by One Vote,” New York Times, September 25, 1924, 1; “Roosevelt Nominated for Governor,” New York Times, September 26, 1924, 1.

91. “Lowman to Control Party in Senate,” New York Times, January 25, 1925, 17; “Finds Leaders Friendly,” New York Times, January 26, 1925, 2; Women Press Leaders for Equality Bill,” New York Times, February 10, 1925, 25; “Assembly Passes Measure Affecting Women Politicians,” New York Times, March 26, 1925, 2.

92. “Smith Sticks to Retirement Plan; Says ‘It Must Be’,” New York Times, January 16, 1926, 1; “State Republicans Meet Here in Fall; Wet Victory Seen,” New York Times, May 22, 1926, 1.

93. “Test on Women Members,” New York Times, September 26, 1926, 18; “Legislature Delays Adjourning a Week,” New York Times, March 8, 1928, 3.

94. New York Times, April 13, 1929, 6; “Up-State Women in Fight for Place,” New York Times, August 24, 1930, III, 5.

95. “Republican Chiefs in Up-State Revolt,” New York Times, December 18, 1927, 26.

96. “Up-State Women in Fight for Place,” New York Times, August 24, 1930, III, 5; “Women Take Active Part,” New York Times, September 14, 1930, III, 5.

97. “24 Named By Macy To Lead State Party,” New York Times, December 21, 1930, 1.

98. “But One Woman Delegate,” New York Times, March 2, 1920, 17; “Republicans Finish Up-State Slates-Only One Woman Chosen by the Organization for National Convention Dele-gate,” New York Times, March 5, 1920, 17; “Republicans Slate Only Two Women,” New York Times March 8, 1920, 15.

99. “State Republicans Commend Coolidge and Attack Smith,” New York Times, April 17, 1924, 1.

100. “Republican Chiefs in Up-State Revolt,” New York Times, December 18, 1927, 26; “Plan Republican Meeting,” New York Times, January 9, 1928, 2; “Republican Women Meet,” New York Times, January 13, 1928, 12; “Republican Women Want 3 Delegates,” New York Times, January 14, 1928, 2; “Republican Women Gain a Delegate,” New York Times, May 23, 1928, 2.

101. “Want Roosevelt to Lead in State,” New York Times, July 18, 1918, 9; Fisher, Marguerite, “Women in the Political Parties,” The Annals of the American Academy 251 (05 1947): 87–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 92–93.

102. “Mack Senate Boom Started by Women,” New York Times, February 8, 1920, 12.

103. “Anti-Hearst Women Will Organize City,” New York Times, June 28, 1922, 19.

104. “Lehman is Named For Appeals Court,” New York Times, September 29, 1923, 3.

105. “Women Democrats Lose Equality Point,” New York Times, September 26, 1924, 3.

106. “Smith Sticks to Retirement Plan; Says ‘It Must Be’,” New York Times, January 16, 1926, 1.

107. “Women Fight For Mrs. O'Day,” New York Times, September 27, 1926, 3; “Democrats Re-Elect Committee Officers,” New York Times, September 28, 1926, 14.

108. “Democratic Women Win Two Places on Party ‘Big Four’,” New York Times, February 26, 1920, 1; “State Democrats Declare Boldly for Dry Repeal,” New York Times, February 27, 1920, 1.

109. “Democratic Women Win,” New York Times April 16, 1924, 2.

110. “Democrats to Pick 16 For Convention,” New York Times, March 5, 1932, 2.

111. “Recommend Putting Women on the Executive Committee,” New York Times, June 9, 1920, 2.

112. Charles D. Hilles to Warren G. Harding, May 31, 1923, Warren G. Harding Papers, reel 195, frame 182; Charles D. Hilles to Mary Livermore, May 31, 1923, Warren G. Harding Papers, reel 195, frames 183–86; Warren G. Harding to Charles D. Hilles, June 2, 1923, Warren G. Harding Papers, reel 195, frame 181; “Republican Women Gain Recognition,” New York Times, June 9, 1923, 1; “Republican Leaders Want Women's Advice,” New York Times, June 13, 1923, 21; “Republican Committeewomen,” New York Times, June 29, 1923, 16; “G.O.P. Women To Enter National Committee,” New York Times, June 26, 1923, 14. This action was approved by the full National Committee in December 1923; “South Wins Back Delegates Dropped by 1920 Convention,” New York Times, December 13, 1923, 3.

113. “Few Women Named By Republicans,” New York Times, June 3, 1928, 4. Breckenridge, Sophonisba counted twenty-seven female delegates in 1920 (Women in the Twentieth Century [New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1933], 289)Google Scholar.

114. Cpton, Harriet Taylor, in “Women Offer Planks for G.O.P. Platform,” New York Times, 04 7, 1924, 3Google Scholar. Women held twenty-nine of fifty-eight spots on this subcommittee.

115. “Butler is Beaten in Rules Committee,” New York Times, June 11, 1924, 1; “Platform Wins Amid Cheers,” New York Times, June 12, 1924, 2.

116. Out of 1,089 voting delegates, 64 were women, compared to 120 female voting delegates present at the 1924 national convention. “Few Women Named By Republicans,” New York Times, June 3, 1928, 4. Breckenridge counted seventy female delegates. Breckenridge, Women in the Twentieth Century, 289.

117. “Women Win Plums At the Convention,” New York Times, June 12, 1928, 4.

118. “Women Plan Fight to Elect Hoover,” New York Times, July 25, 1928, 2.

119. “Mrs. Hert Quits Republican Post,” New York Times, January 19, 1930, 24.

120. “Mrs. Yost Selected For Dodson Place,” New York Times, August 14, 1930, 2.

121. Good, Josephine, Republican Womanpower: The History of Women in Republican National Conventions and Women in the Republican National Committee (Washington, D.C.: Republican National Committee, 1963), 24, 27, 33, 37Google Scholar.

122. “Committee Votes For Full Hearing,” New York Times, June 26, 1920, 2; “Women Prominent in Day's Session,” New York Times, June 30, 1920, 2.

123. “To Keep Women's Bureau,” New York Times, July 5, 1920, 2.

124. “Smith Boom Grows, State Leaders Say,” New York Times, February 8, 1924, 1.

125. “Women to Muster 308 at Convention,” New York Times, June 27, 1920, 2. Sophonisba Breckenridge counted ninety-three female delegate votes at the 1920 convention (Women in the Twentieth Century, 289).

126. “Democratic Women to Help On Platform,” New York Times, March 31, 1924, 2; “Women Are Slow to Use the Ballot,” New York Times April 20, 1924, IX, 1.

127. “Democrats Issue Convention Call,” New York Times, January 28, 1928, 6.

128. “Mrs. Blair Urges a Short Platform,” New York Times, June 24, 1928, 3.

129. “Few Committeewomen,” New York Times, June 27, 1928, 2.

130. “Governor Smith Enjoins Aides to ‘Get Busy’,” New York Times, July 13, 1928, 1.

131. “Smith Declares He Will Be Active in State Campaign,” New York Times, July 19, 1928, 1.

132. “Democrats Confer on National Policy,” New York Times, April 20, 1929, 2.

133. “Senators to Guide Democratic Party,” New York Times, April 21, 1929, 13.

134. Press Release, Democratic National Committee, January 26, 1953, DNC Press Releases, box 4, John F. Kennedy Library.

135. Transcript of DNC meeting, September 15, 1953, 25, DNC Papers, John F. Kennedy Library.

136. Transcript of DNEC meeting, April 1, 1953, 114, DNC Papers, John F. Kennedy Library.

137. Ibid., 93–94, also see 97, 103–4, 106–8, 111.

138. Ibid., 118.

139. See Edwards, Pulling No Punches, 252.

140. Ibid.

141. See for example transcript of DNEC meeting, February 14, 1953, 58–61, 64–65; transcript of DNEC meeting, April 1, 1953, 91–93, 100–2, 105–6; transcript of DNC meeting, September 15, 1953, 25–26, DNC Papers, John F. Kennedy Library.

142. Transcript of DNEC meeting, April 1, 1953, 91–92, DNC Papers, John F. Kennedy Library.

143. Transcript of DNEC meeting, April 1, 1953, 284, DNC Papers, John F. Kennedy Library.

144. Transcript of DNC meeting, May 3, 1957, 122–24, DNC Papers, box 121, John F. Kennedy Library.

145. Katie Louchheim to DNC Chairman, June 26, 1957, DNC Papers, John F. Kennedy Library.

146. Ibid.

147. Minutes of DNEC meeting, May 6, 1954, DNC Papers, John F. Kennedy Library.

148. Transcript of DNC meeting, February 15, 1957, 87–88, DNC Papers, box 119, John F. Kennedy Library.

149. Katie Louchheim to DNC Chairman, June 26, 1957.

150. India Edwards to Paul Butler, December 8, 1958, DNC Papers, box 439, John F. Kennedy Library.

151. Edwards, Pulling Xo Punches, 104.

152. Josephine L. Good, Republican Womanpower, 22, 24, 35.

153. Ibid., 26.

154. Ibid., 24, 27, 33, 37.

155. Williams, Clare B., The History of the Founding and Development of the National Federation of Republican Women (Women's Division, Republican National Committee, 1963), 32–33Google Scholar.

156. Eugenia Kaledin, Mothers and More: American Women in the 1950s, 84–85.

157. Good, Republican Womanpower, 36.

158. Ibid., 41.

159. Ibid., 465–66.

160. O'Brien, Tim, “Women's Caucus Seeks U.S. Ban on Sex Bias,” Washington Post, 07 13, 1971Google Scholar, A2.

161. Shafer, Byron E., Quiet Revolution: The Struggle for the Democratic Party and the Shaping of Post-Reform Politics (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1983), 138–42, 169–72Google Scholar.

162. Ibid., pp. 466–86.

163. Wandersee, Winifred, On The Move: American Women in the 1970s (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1988), 20, 25Google Scholar; Denise Baer, “The National Federation of Republican Women: Women's Auxiliary or Feminist Force?” (paper delivered at the 1995 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, August 31–September 3), 3.

164. Harvey, “The Political Consequences of Suffrage Exclusion”; Harvey, “The Legacy of Disfranchisement.”

165. See Aldrich, Why Parties?, chap. 8, for an illuminating discussion of the literature on this issue.