OLYMPIA, Wash. – Governor Bob Ferguson recently signed off on the first legislative session of his term. Some laws have already gone into effect from that session, however a new batch are set to become law on July 1.

For Seattle drivers, SR-99 tunnel tolls are set to increase on July 1. This is part of a larger plan to increase tolls every 3 years to pay for the $200 million the state borrowed for construction.

Coming into effect July 27

• Under HB 1875, Washington State’s paid sick leave law will be expanded to include time off for immigration-related proceedings.
• Mini–WARN Act – Employers with 50+ full-time staff must now give 60 days’ written notice before mass layoffs or closures.

Wage Equality and Anti-Discrimination

HB 1905 was passed in the 2023-2024 session. It will go into effect in July 2025 to significantly expand the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act by extending protections to a broader set of protected classes. Protected classes now include age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, veteran or military status, disability, and the use of service animals. Employers must ensure that compensation practices and workplace policies are free from discrimination across this expanded list.

Rent stabilization

Annual rent increases will be capped for most Washington renters after House Bill 1217 was signed into law.

Right to repair bill

Governor Bob Ferguson has signed a wide-ranging Right to Repair bill into law, aiming to improve consumer protections from costly device

Requiring clergy to report abuse

Washington’s new law mandates clergy to report suspected child abuse, even from confessions. This has since sparked debate over religious freedom.

HB 1163

Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson signed a law in May requiring drivers whose licenses are suspended for reckless driving to have intelligent speed assistance (ISA) devices installed on their cars if they want to drive again immediately.

Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson on May 20 signed into law a controversial policy requiring gun buyers to first pay for a new state permit. Starting in two years, House Bill 1163 will require those interested in purchasing guns to apply for a five-year permit through the Washington State Patrol. Applicants must pay a fee and have completed a certified firearms safety training program within the past five years, with limited exceptions

SB 5041

Senate Bill 5041 will make Washington the third state in the nation to offer benefits to workers on strike, following New York and New Jersey. 

Here are the details: 

• Workers will become eligible for unemployment benefits on the second Sunday following the first date of the strike
• If the judge rules that the strike was prohibited, workers who received benefits must repay the Washington Employment Security Department (ESD) any unemployment funds that they received 
• If retroactive wages are paid for any weeks the individual received benefits, ESD must issue an overpayment assessment to recover the benefits
• The regular one-week waiting period applies after the disqualification ends 
• The striking individual may receive benefits for no more than six calendar weeks

ESD will present an annual study to the Legislature to report on the prevalence of strikes occurring within Washington and the impact of strikes on the state’s Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund. The law currently has a sunset date in 2035.

The law will go into effect next January.

HB 1498

This bill creates a Domestic Violence Co-Responder Grant Program by implementing an extra $100 fee on marriage licenses. 

The program will award matching grants to cities and counties to establish and operate domestic violence co-responder programs. Such programs use domestic violence victim advocates who are summoned by law enforcement to the scene of a domestic violence incident to provide whole family support, resource connection and care navigation for victims. 

HB 1811

This bill makes multiple modifications to enhance crisis response services through co-responders. 

Co-responders are now added to a list of first responders who may not be compelled to testify about their communications with recipients of peer support services. 

The University of Washington School of Social Work is directed to establish a program to administer a crisis responder training academy, which will provide a certification in best practices in crisis response, and cover topics such as safety and crisis de-escalation tactics, teamwork across disciplines, culturally responsive crisis care, suicide intervention, substance use disorder engagement and overdose response. 

Co-responders are also classified as “frontline employees” during public health emergencies to presume that an infectious or contagious disease was acquired during employment under the Workers’ Compensation program. 

SB 5004

This bill mandates updates to school security systems, including adding panic or alert buttons and live feeds accessible by law enforcement. 

The bill is in part due to the efforts of a parent whose daughter was killed in a mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in 2018. Alyssa Alhadeff was just 14 years old when she died. Now her mother, Lori Alhadeff, is on a mission to improve safety at other schools around the country. 

The bill directs school districts to work with local law enforcement agencies and school security staff to develop an emergency response system, which must include at least one of the following: 

• Panic or alert buttons that are tied to school administration, school district staff, and emergency response providers 
• Live video feed with law enforcement, school district, and school access 
• Live audio feed with law enforcement, school district, and school access 
• Remote control access to doors 
• Live interactive two-way communications; 
• Or a system that complies with applicable state building code requirements for group E

OSPI must report to the legislature by Dec. 1 what types of emergency response systems schools are using. 

The bill will be known as “Alyssa’s Law.” 

SB 5032

This bill expands the statutory authority of the Office of the Family and Children’s Ombuds to include youth and individuals in the state’s care or custody, including at juvenile rehabilitation facilities. The office is in charge of helping citizens navigate state agencies serving children, youth and families, and investigating complaints about agencies’ actions or conduct. 

SB 5224

This bill requires a peace or reserve officer moving from one agency to another, or to a certified corrections officer position, to undergo a background check before beginning their new job. 

The bill also makes technical updates to existing Washington law and removes the Criminal Justice Training Center’s ability to appoint railroad officers; however, the agency can still commission them. 

HB 2015

This bill authorizes a new local 0.1% sales and use tax for criminal justice purposes and a Local Law Enforcement Grant Program. 

The legislative authority for a city or county may implement the tax if it meets the requirements to receive grant funding, and funds collected must be used for criminal justice purposes. The new tax may only be imposed if and when the jurisdiction receives a grant. 

SB 5662

This bill allows Spokane County to waive connection charges for developers building emergency shelter, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, or affordable housing. 

HB 1483

This bill establishes the Right to Repair Act, which requires original manufacturers of digital electronic products to make available to independent repair providers on fair and reasonable terms, certain parts, tools and documentation for the diagnosis, maintenance or repair of digital electronic products. 

There are certain exceptions where parts, tools and documentation do not have to be made available. 

The Attorney General will be the enforcing agency for the Right to Repair Act. 

SB 5680

This bill establishes a right to repair for mobility devices. 

An equipment manufacturer must, on fair and reasonable terms, make available to any independent repair provider or owner the documentation, parts, embedded software, firmware, or tools that are intended for use with the equipment. The original manufacturer must also provide any updates to those materials.

SB 5486

This bill requires movie theaters open to the public to offer closed and open captioning services. 

Open captioning is always in view on the main screen and cannot be turned off, whereas closed captioning may be delivered through an accessible device or glasses that show the captions. 

All theaters must provide closed captioning devices. 

For movies that offer open captioning, companies that operate five or more theaters must offer a certain number of screenings during specific periods, such as the first two weeks after a movie’s release, and during peak business hours, which display open captioning. Theaters must advertise the times for open captioned screenings the same way they do for other screenings. 

Companies that operate four or fewer theaters must provide an open-captioned screening within eight days of receiving a request.

HB 1207

This bill creates an additional $50 surcharge for certain filing fees collected by clerks of superior courts, with $5 retained by the county for the county clerk’s office operations, and the remainder deposited into certain state accounts. 

HB 1359

This bill establishes a task force to review and make recommended changes to laws related to criminal insanity and competency to stand trial. 

The task force will review existing law to identify barriers in administration, fairness, efficiency and public safety, consider terminology changes to improve clarity and reduce stigma, make recommendations to remove barriers to diversion programs, promote effective treatment and increase services that would facilitate safe hospital discharges. 

HB 1392

This bill creates the Medicaid Access Program, creates a covered-lives assessment on Medicaid managed care organizations and health carriers and increases Medicaid professional services rates up to the equivalent Medicare rates. 

HB 1427

This bill makes multiple changes to state law governing certified peer support specialists, including directing the Health Care Authority to develop courses to supplement training related to domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking. The Authority will be required to contract with at least one external entity to develop ways to expand access to peer support services, and requires that the accessibility to peer services in a managed care organization’s network be given significant weight in any procurement for Medicaid managed care services. 

HB 1515

This bill allows local jurisdictions to request expanded outdoor alcohol service for liquor licensees, like beer and wine restaurants, breweries, distilleries and snack bars, subject to requirements. Outdoor alcohol service requests may also be limited to a specific event on a publicly owned civic campus. 

HB 1552

This bill increases the fee on real estate broker and managing broker licenses from $10 to $20. 

These fees are also extended for another ten years. 

HB 1837

This bill establishes target goals for the Washington State Department of Transportation for Amtrak Cascades service for the number of roundtrips per day, trip reliability and emissions reduction for trips between Portland and Vancouver, B.C.

HB 1848

This bill increases the portion of a traffic infraction fee that is deposited into the Traumatic Brain Injury Account from $5 to $10 per infraction. 

At least 30% of the annual expenditures from the account must be used exclusively for in-person support groups for individuals with a traumatic brain injury and their families, programs designed for social integration, peer-to-peer mentoring and equitable geographic access to programs. 

HB 2047

This bill eliminates the Washington Employee Ownership program, which supports efforts of businesses considering a sale to an employee ownership structure, by 2030. 

HB 2051

This bill removes multiple requirements related to hospital billing by the Health Care Authority. 

SB 5263

This bill makes multiple changes to special education funding. 

HB 1296

This bill makes changes to current law governing student rights, parental and guardian rights, employee protections and requirements for state and local education entities as they relate to the public education system. 

Some of the most notable changes include eliminating a parent’s right to receive prior notification when medical services are being offered to their child at school, which was included in an initiative (the “Parents Bill of Rights”) that passed last year. The bill adds ethnicity, homelessness, immigration, or citizenship status and neurodivergence as protected classes under public school nondiscrimination provisions under Washington state law and clarifies protections for sexual orientation, gender expression and gender identity. 

HB 1131

This bill makes changes to state law governing the Clemency and Pardons Board. The Board is directed to expedite review of a petitioner’s application if they indicate an urgent need for a pardon or commutation, including a pending deportation order or proceeding. A person’s immigration status does not impact their eligibility for a pardon, commutation, or restoration of their civil rights. 

The Board is expanded from five to ten members, to include: 

• A person from an underrepresented population with direct lived experience in the subject matter being addressed by the CPB; 
• A person with lived experience as an incarcerated individual, or has worked with the formerly incarcerated, or successfully community reentry; 
• A representative of a faith-based organization or church with interest or experience in community reentry; 
• A person with experience and interest in tribal affairs; 
• Two representatives of crime victims. 
• However, specific components of this act may be null and void if funding is not appropriated by June 30.

SB 5009

This bill expands the type of vehicles allowed to be used to transport students to and from school by school districts. 

The transportation distribution formula may not mandate the type of vehicle to be used for pupil transportation. The school bus purchase and reimbursement statute is expanded to apply to student vehicles rather than only school buses. 

The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction is required to come up with rules for drivers transporting students in Washington State Patrol-inspected school vehicles other than buses. A driver that exclusively transports students in such a vehicle must have the appropriate license for that vehicle, and may not be required to hold a commercial driver’s license. 

SB 5083

This bill requires hospitals participating in Medicaid programs to contract with the Public Employees Benefits Board and the School Employees Benefits Board and modifies reimbursements for inpatient and outpatient services at licensed, critical access, sole community and children’s hospitals.

SB 5093

This bill removes the jurisdiction of county coroners and medical examiners over bodies of deceased persons whose death resulted from known or suspected abortions, or due to premature births or stillbirths. 

Correctional institutions and private detention facilities must report annually to the Department of Health on the aggregate number of people who experience miscarriage, stillbirth, or perinatal loss while confined or incarcerated in such facilities. The Department of Health will then report to the legislature on an annual basis. Personal identifying information will not be included in the reports. 

SB 5101

This bill expands access to leave and safety accommodations to include workers who are victims of hate crimes or bias incidents. Leave and Safety Accommodation grants employees the right to take reasonable leave from work to obtain assistance in certain situations. An employer cannot refuse to make a reasonable safety accommodation unless it would place undue hardship on the employer’s business. An accommodation may include a transfer, reassignment, or modified schedule. 

SB 5138

This bill mandates that counties in which a convention or trade center is located must use their portion of revenues collected by the Public Facilities District for affordable housing and community-initiated equitable development, rather than only affordable housing. 

“Community-initiated equitable development” means strategic, capacity-building and capital investments determined and directed by communities who have experienced significant historical and ongoing social and economic vulnerabilities with the purpose of offsetting disparities, preventing or reducing displacement, addressing marginalization, and improving access to opportunities, resources, and outcomes. 

SB 5143

This bill revises and adds definitions and makes technical changes to the Ethics and Public Service Act. This is the first update since 1993.

SB 5206

This bill increases the number of cannabis-related advertising signs a retailer is permitted to have outside their licensed premises to four, and does not include trade name signs or billboards in that count. 

Up to two trade name signs are allowed. 

Businesses of vapor product licensees or cigarette or tobacco licensees are not allowed to advertise cannabis products. 

SB 5217

This bill expands pregnancy-related accommodations in the workplace and for jury duty. 

An employer will be required to pay an employee for break or travel time at their regular compensation rate if the business does not have a private location other than a bathroom to express milk during work. 

An employer may not require an employee to use paid leave during break or travel time to express milk. Any break time to express milk is in addition to meal and rest periods provided under the current law.

The bill requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for breastfeeding employees and bans retaliation against workers who request them. 

A person who is breastfeeding or expressing breast milk for an infant under 24 months old may request to delay or be excused from jury service if the person said they are unable to serve for that reason. A court is required to grant this request. 

SB 5291

This bill implements multiple recommendations of the Long-Term Services and Supports Trust Commission.

SB 5357

This bill makes changes to the actuarial funding of state pension systems. 

SB 5408

This bill strengthens Washington’s salary and wage disclosure law, allowing applicants to know what a position pays, and allows employers time to come into compliance with state law.

An individual may provide written notice to an employer if a job posting does not comply with the disclosure of wage scale requirements. An employer has 14 days to correct the posting before penalties apply. 

SB 5388

This bill requires that substance use disorder treatment services be provided by individuals licensed by the state of Washington. 

The Department of Health and the Department of Corrections are required to jointly adopt standards by July 2026 for the provision of behavioral health to individuals in correctional facilities, and fully implement and conduct inspections of adherence to those standards by 2027. 

SB 5412

This bill allows for school districts in the state of Washington that are under binding conditions or enhanced financial oversight to make a temporary interfund loan from their capital projects fund, subject to conditions. 

SB 5444

This bill creates several new special license plate options in the state of Washington. 

Aside from the license plates designated in this bill, there is a moratorium on new special license plate requests until 2029.

These are the new license plates: 

• Mount St. Helens, with proceeds going to the Mount St. Helens Institute to promote education, stewardship, and science at Mount St. Helens
• LeMay-America’s Car Museum, with proceeds going to education and job training related to automobiles
• Smokey Bear, with proceeds going to the Department of Natural Resources wildfire prevention programs
• State Sport, with proceeds going to the Seattle Metro Pickleball Association to be used exclusively for the construction and maintenance of dedicated pickleball courts
• Keep Washington Evergreen, with proceeds going to the Electric Vehicle Account for the support of electric charging stations throughout Washington
• Historical Throwback, with proceeds used for expanding and improving driver’s education programs and activities
• Honey Bees & Pollinators, with proceeds going to the Washington State Beekeepers Association to be used for research and educational activities and materials about honey bees and pollinators within Washington

These license plates are authorized, but may only be implemented if they submit 3,500 signatures in support of the special license:  Donate Life, with proceeds going to Life Center Northwest to build awareness for organ donation and organ donation registration

Firefighter Memorial, with proceeds going to the Washington State Council of Firefighters to be used to benefit firefighters and their families in need

Nautical Northwest, with proceeds going to support of historic resources of Whidbey Island’s maritime communities

Naval Academy, with proceeds going to the Veterans Stewardship Account to be used to benefit veterans or their families

Seattle Reign FC, with proceeds going to the RAVE foundation to champion and empower girls, women, and gender diverse people, protect the Salish Sea, and advance equity for all, in play and life

Working Forests, with proceeds going to the Washington Tree Farm Program to support small forest landowners

The annual renewal fee for a personalized license plate is raised from $42 to $52.

This bill is named after Sen. Bill Ramos, who was active in passing this legislation. 

SB 5471

This bill allows counties planning under the Growth Management Act to authorize multi-family housing types on parcels for single-family residences in designated urban growth areas and limited areas for more intensive rural development. 

SB 5503

This bill makes changes to Public Employment Relations Commission procedures related to representation petitions, hearings and the merging of bargaining units under the Public Employees’ Collective Bargaining Act. 

Public employers are prohibited from requiring a worker to waive any federal or state statutory right to claim a condition of settling a grievance under a collective bargaining agreement. 

SB 5568

This bill directs the Office of Financial Management to update the state health plan by developing a statewide health resources strategy. 

SB 5579

This bill prohibits health carriers or health care providers from making public statements regarding a possible contract termination, except under certain circumstances. 

SB 5587

This bill requires the Washington Center for Real Estate Research to provide a biennial analysis of each county’s progress in closing the gap between existing housing units and estimated housing needs. 

The Public Works Board is directed to consider whether a project encourages infill development or an increase in affordable housing in counties identified as having a gap when prioritizing applications for grants and loans. 

SB 5651

This bill deals with exemptions from wage garnishment. 

The bill increases the amount of personal property in financial accounts and securities that is automatically protected from execution, attachment and garnishment in nonbankruptcy proceedings for consumer debt. 

Regular adjustments of exempt personal property amounts according to the consumer price index are required. 

Automatic protections in nonbankruptcy proceedings are made permanent. 

Alimony and spousal support money paid or owed to the debtor is exempt from execution, attachment and garnishment. 

SB 5677

This bill removes reporting requirements for Associate Development Organizations concerning businesses that receive retention and expansion services, as well as businesses that receive recruitment, retention and expansion services located outside the boundaries of the largest city in the county.

For rural counties, a per-county base allocation is changed from “up to $40,000” to $40,000. 

The matched allocation shall not include general fund monies appropriated by the state, but may include a combination of nonstate funds, cash, or in-kind contributions. 

SB 5686

This bill expands the Foreclosure Mediation Program to include unit owners who are delinquent or may become delinquent on their association assessments, and establishes the process and timelines for mediation.

An $80 fee will be collected on certain residential mortgage loan originations to be remitted to the foreclosure fairness account, and revises the distributions to fund the program.

SB 5721

This bill creates a right to an appraisal in automobile insurance policies with first-party coverage for physical damage, which are issued or renewed on or after Jan. 1, 2026. This will help resolve disputes between an insurer and the insured about the cash value of a damaged vehicle. 

This bill specifies requirements and procedures for the appraisal, including timeframes for involving appraisal, selecting appraisers and appointing umpires and determining the amount of loss. 

This bill specifies the bearing of appraisal costs but requires an insurer to reimburse the policyholder for appraisal costs under certain circumstances. The Office of the Insurance Commissioner is required to register competent and disinterested umpires and appoint such an umpire upon request. 

SB 5785

This bill makes multiple modifications to the Washington College Grant (WCG) and the College Bound Scholarship (CBS). 

• For the 2025-2026 school year, students whose families make up to 60% of the Median Family Income will receive the maximum (Washington College Grant award). 
• For students attending private four-year not-for-profit higher education institutions, the maximum WCG award is 50% of the average of awards for the same academic year granted to students at the public research institutions beginning in the 2026-2027 school year. 
• Awards for students attending two-year and four-year private, for-profit institutions will be eliminated beginning in the 2026-2027 school year. 
• Beginning 2026-2027, the maximum award for students attending apprenticeship programs is 50% of the maximum award for students attending public, two-year institutions.
• The maximum WCG award for students attending the Washington Governor’s University is reduced to $4150 beginning in 2026-2027

The following changes will be made to the CBS beginning the 2027-2028 school year: 

• For students attending private four-year not-for-profit higher education institutions, the maximum award is 50 percent of the average of awards for the same academic year granted to students at the public research institutions 
• For students attending two-year and four-year private for-profit institutions of higher education, awards are eliminated
• For students attending WGU, the maximum award is reduced to $4,650.

This bill goes into effect July 1.

“Our state’s budget crisis this year has forced us to make some difficult decisions and this was certainly one of them,” Gov. Ferguson said Tuesday at the bill signing. “Even with these changes, however, Washington state will continue to offer the most generous college financial aid programs in our country.”

SB 5807

This bill eliminates the SmartHealth Program offered by the Public Employees’ Benefits Board and the School Employees’ Benefits Board. 

A requirement for both benefit boards to consider wellness incentives has been changed to “consider wellness initiatives.”

Estate taxes and transfer tax changes

SB 5813 aims to increase funding for education by creating a more progressive rate structure for the capital gains tax and estate tax.

Rates for Washington taxable estates are increased as follows for estates of decedents dying on or after July 1: 

Washington Taxable Estate Value (Current rate vs new rate) 

$0 to $1,000,000 – remains at 10%

$1,000,000 to $2,000,000 14% to 15% 

$2,000,000 to $3,000,000 15% to 17% 

$3,000,000 to $4,000,000 16% to 19% 

$4,000,000 to $6,000,000 18% to 23% 

$6,000,000 to $7,000,000 19% to 26% 

$7,000,000 to $9,000,000 19.5% to 30% 

$9,000,000 and up 20% to 35% 

“A qualified nonfamilial heir may be eligible for the estate tax deduction for a farm. A ‘qualified nonfamilial heir’ means an employee of the farm who materially participated in farming operations on the farm and who acquired the property, or to whom the property passed from the decedent,” reads a section of SB 5813’s final report. 

Sources: for complete articles

cascadiadaily.com

USA today

king5.com

fox13seattle.com

“Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married . . .”

Women and Naturalization, ca. 1802–1940

Summer 1998, Vol. 30, No. 2 | Genealogy Notes

By Marian L. Smith

Enlarge

In general, immigrant women, such as these arrivals at Ellis Island, have always had the right to become U.S. citizens, but a succession of laws in the nineteenth century worked to keep certain women out of the naturalization process. (NARA, 90-G-125-3)

View in National Archives Catalog

The fact that women are not equally represented among the nation’s early naturalization records often surprises researchers. Those who assume naturalization practice and procedure have always been as they are today may spend valuable time searching for a nonexistent record. At the same time, many genealogists do find naturalization records for women. The resulting confusion about this subject generates a demand for clear, simple instructions by which to guide research. Unfortunately, the only rule one can apply to all U.S. naturalization records—certainly all those prior to September 1906—is that there was no rule.1

There were certain legal and social provisions, however, governing which women did and did not go to court to naturalize. In general, immigrant women have always had the right to become U.S. citizens, but not every court honored that right. Since the mid-nineteenth century, a succession of laws worked to keep certain women out of naturalization records, either by granting them derivative citizenship or barring their naturalization altogether. It is this variety of laws covering the history of women’s naturalization, as well as different courts’ varying interpretation of those laws, that help explain whether a naturalization record exists for any given immigrant woman.

While original U.S. nationality legislation of 1790, 1795, and 1802 limited naturalization eligibility to “free white persons,” it did not limit eligibility by sex. But as early as 1804 the law began to draw distinctions regarding married women in naturalization law. Since that date, and until 1934, when a man filed a declaration of intention to become a citizen but died prior to naturalization, his widow and minor children were “considered as citizens of the United States” if they/she appeared in court and took the oath of allegiance and renunciation.2 Thus, among naturalization court records, one could find a record of a woman taking the oath, but find no corresponding declaration for her, and perhaps no petition.

Unless a woman was single or widowed, she had few reasons to naturalize prior to the twentieth century. Women, foreign-born or native, could not vote. Until the mid-nineteenth century, women typically did not hold property or appear as “persons” before the law. Under these circumstances, only widows and spinsters would be expected to seek the protections U.S. citizenship might afford. One might also remember that naturalization involved the payment of court fees. Without any tangible benefit resulting from a woman’s naturalization, it is doubtful that many women or their husbands considered the fees to be money well spent.

Enlarge

Barbara M. Baier applied for citizenship in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on January 29, 1892. The clerk had to alter the text to “a woman of good moral character.” (NARA, Records of District Courts of the United States, RG 21)

New laws of the mid-1800s opened an era when a woman’s ability to naturalize became dependent upon her marital status. The act of February 10, 1855, was designed to benefit immigrant women. Under that act, “[a]ny woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the United States, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized, shall be deemed a citizen.” Thus alien women generally became U.S. citizens by marriage to a U.S. citizen or through an alien husband’s naturalization. The only women who did not derive citizenship by marriage under this law were those racially ineligible for naturalization and, since 1917, those women whose marriage to a U.S. citizen occurred suspiciously soon after her arrest for prostitution. The connection between an immigrant woman’s nationality and that of her husband convinced many judges that unless the husband of an alien couple became naturalized, the wife could not become a citizen. While one will find some courts that naturalized the wives of aliens, until 1922 the courts generally held that the alien wife of an alien husband could not herself be naturalized.3

In innumerable cases under the 1855 law, an immigrant woman instantly became a U.S. citizen at the moment a judge’s order naturalized her immigrant husband. If her husband naturalized prior to September 27, 1906, the woman may or may not be mentioned on the record which actually granted her citizenship. Her only proof of U.S. citizenship would be a combination of the marriage certificate and her husband’s naturalization record. Prior to 1922, this provision applied to women regardless of their place of residence. Thus if a woman’s husband left their home abroad to seek work in America, became a naturalized citizen, then sent for her to join him, that woman might enter the United States for the first time listed as a U.S. citizen.4

In other cases, the immigrant woman suddenly became a citizen when she and her U.S. citizen fiancé were declared “man and wife.” In this case her proof of citizenship was a combination of two documents: the marriage certificate and her husband’s birth record or naturalization certificate. If such an alien woman also had minor alien children, they, too, derived U.S. citizenship from the marriage. As minors, they instantly derived citizenship from the “naturalization-by-marriage” of their mother. If the marriage took place abroad, the new wife and her children could enter the United States for the first time as citizens. Again, if these events occurred prior to September 27, 1906, it is doubtful any of the children actually appear in what is, technically, their naturalization record. The lack of any record for those children’s naturalization might cause some of them, after reaching the age of majority, to go to naturalization court and become citizens again.

Just as alien women gained U.S. citizenship by marriage, U.S.-born women often gained foreign nationality (and thereby lost their U.S. citizenship) by marriage to a foreigner. As the law increasingly linked women’s citizenship to that of their husbands, the courts frequently found that U.S. citizen women expatriated themselves by marriage to an alien. For many years there was disagreement over whether a woman lost her U.S. citizenship simply by virtue of the marriage, or whether she had to actually leave the United States and take up residence with her husband abroad. Eventually it was decided that between 1866 and 1907 no woman lost her U.S. citizenship by marriage to an alien unless she left the United States. Yet this decision was probably of little comfort to some women who, resident in the United States since birth, had been unfairly treated as aliens since their marriages to noncitizens.5

By the late nineteenth century, marital status was the primary factor determining a woman’s ability to naturalize. But other factors might have influenced a judge’s decision to grant or deny a woman’s naturalization petition. Some judges seemed unaware of legal naturalization requirements and regularly granted citizenship to persons racially ineligible, who had not lived in the United States the requisite five years, or did not display “good moral character.” It may be that these judges also granted citizenship to women regardless of their husband’s nationality. Women’s naturalization records dating from the 1880s and 1890s can be found, for example, among the records of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Record Group 21), though these records do not indicate the women’s marital status.

After 1907, marriage determined a woman’s nationality status completely. Under the act of March 2, 1907, all women acquired their husband’s nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date. This changed nothing for immigrant women, but U.S.-born citizen women could now lose their citizenship by any marriage to any alien. Most of these women subsequently regained their U.S. citizenship when their husbands naturalized. However, those who married Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, or other men racially ineligible to naturalize forfeited their U.S. citizenship. Similarly, many former U.S. citizen women found themselves married to men who were ineligible to citizenship for some other reason or who simply refused to naturalize. Because the courts held that a husband’s nationality would always determine that of the wife, a married woman could not legally file for naturalization.6

There were exceptions to the 1907 law’s prohibition against the naturalization of married women. Good examples can be found in the West and upper Midwest, where individuals were still filing entries under the Homestead Act in the early twentieth century. Many women filed homestead entries, either while married to aliens or prior to marrying an immigrant. Later, when they petitioned for the citizenship necessary to obtain final deed to the property, some judges granted their petitions despite their marital status. In these cases the judges held that if the government intended to deny the women citizenship it should not have allowed them to file entries with the General Land Office. In other homestead-related cases, the granting of citizenship to women seemed less a matter of principle and more a method, adopted locally, to acquire additional property.7 Women’s inability to naturalize during these years did not prevent them from trying. Many women filed declarations of intention to become citizens and may have even managed to file petitions before being denied. At least one woman’s petition came before the court because she did not declare her marital status. Often women had no choice but to file at least a declaration of intent. In some states aliens could not file for divorce or other court proceedings. An alien woman seeking divorce might file the declaration simply to facilitate filing a separate suit.8 Declarations of intention and petitions filed by women should remain on file with other court naturalization records.

A few women successfully naturalized in these years, but they might have subsequently had their naturalization certificates canceled. Finnish-born Hilma Ruuth, for example, filed her declaration of intention to become a citizen in the U.S. District Court at Minneapolis, Minnesota, on December 1, 1903. In 1910 Hilma married Jaakob Esala, another Finnish immigrant, and in the same year she filed her petition for naturalization with the district court of St. Louis County, at Virginia, Minnesota. Her petition bore her married name, Hilma Esala, and the U.S. Naturalization examiner in St. Paul filed a formal objection to her petition under the 1907 law, which prohibited the naturalization of women married to aliens. The county judge overruled this objection and granted Hilma U.S. citizenship on November 19, 1910. The naturalization examiner responded by passing the case to the U.S. district attorney, who then filed suit in U.S. District Court on January 24, 1911, for cancellation of the certificate. The case was decided on July 11 at the Federal Building in Duluth, where Hilma’s citizenship was canceled and she had to surrender her certificate of naturalization.9 Federal court records of certificate cancellation proceedings are, like federal court naturalization records, found in Record Group 21. Unless there is a name index to the court’s records, researchers will need to know the court’s specific name (i.e., U.S. District Court, U.S. Circuit Court) and location, the type of case, and case number.

The era when a woman’s nationality was determined through that of her husband neared its end when this legal provision began to interfere with men’s ability to naturalize. This unforeseen situation arose in and after 1918 when various states began approving an amendment to grant women suffrage (and which became the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1920). Given that women who derived citizenship through a husband’s naturalization would now be able to vote, some judges refused to naturalize men whose wives did not meet eligibility requirements, including the ability to speak English. The additional examination of each applicant’s wife delayed already crowded court dockets, and some men who were denied citizenship began to complain that it was unfair to let their wives’ nationality interfere with their own.10

Enlarge

Karen Marie Hosford had a confusing naturalization problem concerning her husband’s declaration of intention and her right to U.S. citizenship. (NARA, Records of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, RG 85)

Happily, Congress was at work and on September 22, 1922, passed the Married Women’s Act, also known as the Cable Act. This 1922 law finally gave each woman a nationality of her own. No marriage since that date has granted U.S. citizenship to any alien woman nor taken it from any U.S.-born women who married an alien eligible to naturalization.11 Under the new law women became eligible to naturalize on (almost) the same terms as men. The only difference concerned those women whose husbands had already naturalized. If her husband was a citizen, the wife did not need to file a declaration of intention. She could initiate naturalization proceedings with a petition alone (one-paper naturalization). A woman whose husband remained an alien had to start at the beginning, with a declaration of intention. It is important to note that women who lost citizenship by marriage and regained it under Cable Act naturalization provisions could file in any naturalization court—regardless of her residence.12

By this time, confusion over women’s citizenship, and how a woman might regain U.S. citizenship, had become common. The case of Karen Marie Hosford is a good example. She was born in Denmark and immigrated to Canada, where she met and married Grant Hosford in 1911. He was a U.S. citizen, and under U.S. law Karen became a U.S. citizen through their marriage. Then Grant naturalized as a Canadian citizen in 1915, and Karen, too, thereby lost her U.S. citizenship. The couple soon migrated to the United States. After a few years Grant decided to regain his U.S. citizenship and filed a declaration of intention at his local naturalization court. Unfortunately, Grant died in 1923, not yet naturalized, and left Karen an alien widow. At that point she could petition for naturalization based on his declaration, citing the original 1804 act which gave her that right. But the 1922 act also gave her the option to file her own declaration and begin the naturalization process in her own right.13

While it appears foreign-born women did not complain about any remaining link between a woman’s naturalization and her husband’s, some Naturalization Bureau officials thought any remaining connection was unfair.14 Clear dissatisfaction was expressed by U.S.-born women who, in many cases, belatedly discovered they had lost their citizenship by marriage prior to September 1922 and now must petition for naturalization if they wished to regain it. After considering that other Americans who expatriated themselves by swearing allegiance to another nation during World War I needed only to take the oath of allegiance in court to restore their U.S. citizenship, U.S. Commissioner of Naturalization Raymond Crist suggested that Congress might create some similar provision for U.S.-born women:

Some women feel that a certain stigma attaches to the need of “naturalization” in the same manner as any lowly immigrant. Women of perhaps Mayflower ancestry, whose forbears fought through the Revolution, and whose family names bear honored and conspicuous places in our history, who are thoroughly American at heart, and who perhaps have never left these shores, but whose act in choosing alien husbands has caused forfeiture of American citizenship, bemoan the stipulation that such as they must sue for naturalization by the ordinary means.15

Not until 1936 did Congress comply with Crist’s request, and then only for those women who lost U.S. citizenship by marriage between 1907 and 1922 and whose marriage had terminated through death or divorce. If she met this criteria she could file an application with her local naturalization court and resume her citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance. The application was typically made on Form N-415, Application to Take Oath of Allegiance to the United States, which should be filed in separate volumes from each court’s other naturalization records. Some courts, however, interfiled these documents with other petitions. In 1940 Congress allowed all women who lost citizenship by marriage between 1907 and 1922 to repatriate, or resume their citizenship, regardless of their marital status. Since then, any woman who lost U.S. citizenship in those years by marriage to any alien, even if they remained happily married, could resume her citizenship by applying and taking the oath of allegiance.

Enlarge

In this 1921 photograph, only one women is taking the naturalization class for citizenship. It was not until the following year that women would finally get a nationality of their own and more women would seek to be naturalized. (U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, RG 85)

The subject of women and naturalization was often as confusing to people in the past as it is to researchers today. Not all courts upheld or strictly enforced naturalization requirements. Other misunderstandings arose when naturalization records did not change as rapidly as did naturalization law. For example, after implementation of the Cable Act in 1922, naturalization certificates continued to call for the name of the new citizen’s spouse until at least 1929. This was a remnant of the days when women derived nationality from their husbands, and the name inserted on the certificate after 1922 was usually that of the wife. There were subsequently instances where unnaturalized spouses used such certificates as proof of citizenship, even using them to obtain U.S. passports from the Department of State.16

Still other misunderstandings arise today because some are unable to fathom that immigrant women may have gained U.S. citizenship by any means other than naturalization. There is a surprising number of elderly women alive today who gained U.S. citizenship by marriage to U.S. citizens prior to 1922. Too often they and their children are sent scrambling to obtain some proof of the woman’s citizenship so that she might retain some benefit to which she is entitled. It was not until 1929 that women who gained citizenship through their husband’s naturalization after marriage could obtain a “Certificate of Derivative Citizenship” from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). And it was not until 1940 that INS could issue certificates to women who gained citizenship by marriage to a man already a citizen.17 While not in themselves proof of citizenship for legal purposes, proof of marriage to a U.S. citizen occurring prior to September 22, 1922, and proof of the husband’s U.S. citizenship, remain as the foundation for legally documenting a foreign-born woman’s citizenship.18

---

Marian L. Smith is the senior historian for the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Washington, D.C. She writes and speaks about the history of the agency.

---

Notes

1. For information on the location of federal, state, and local court naturalization records and their availability on microfilm, see Christine Shaefer, Guide to Naturalization Records of the United States (1997). For information about various aspects of naturalization laws and procedures, see John J. Newman, American Naturalization Processes and Procedures, 1790-1985 (1985).

2. Act of March 26, 1804—Widow and Children of Declarant (§ 2168) “shall be considered as citizens of the United States, and shall be entitled to all rights and privileges as such, upon taking the oaths prescribed by law.” Repealed by Basic Naturalization Act of June 29, 1906, but continued in section 4(6) of that act. Repealed 1934, but citizenship of those who previously gained citizenship under this provision remained secure. An act of February 24, 1911, allowed the wives of insane declarants to naturalize following the same procedure.

3. Act of Feb. 10, 1855 (§ 1994, rev. § 2172); see In re Rionda, 164 F 368 (1908); United States v. Cohen, 179 F 834 (1910).

4. Sidney Kansas, Citizenship of the United States of America (1936), p. 67.

5. Frederick A. Cleveland, American Citizenship as Distinguished from Alien Status (1927) pp. 65-66.

6. Ibid.; see also Rule 24(k) of the Naturalization Laws and Regulations, Feb. 15, 1917 (1917), p. 33.

7. Report of Robert A. Coleman, Chief Naturalization Examiner, St. Paul, MN, to Richard K. Campbell, Commissioner of Naturalization, Washington, DC, July 1, 1910, p. 3, entry 26, box 1698, file 457177, pt. I, Records of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC (hereinafter RG 85, NARA).

8. Robert A. Coleman, Chief Naturalization Examiner, St. Paul, MN, to Commissioner of Naturalization, Washington, DC, Feb. 2, 1924, entry 26, box 399, file 20/2, RG 85, NARA. See also “Must be Naturalized under Married Surname of Husband,” in Kansas, Citizenship of the United States of America, pp. 70-71.

9. INS C-File 154992 (including naturalization records of Hilma Esala, District Court of St. Louis County, at Virginia, MN, Nov. 19, 1910, and court decree of the U.S. Circuit Court, District of Minnesota, Fifth Division, July 25, 1911, and other correspondence).

10. Sundry correspondence relative to courts requiring wife of petitioners to attend court at final hearing, 1919-1922, entry 26, box 1475, file 3929, RG 85, NARA.

11. Until 1931, women still expatriated themselves by marriage to an alien racially ineligible to naturalize.

12. Luella Gettys, The Law of Citizenship in the United States (1936) p. 50.

13. Case of Karen Marie Hosford, entry 26, file 23/3444, RG 85, NARA.

14. Paul Armstrong, Chief Naturalization Examiner, Denver, CO, to Commissioner of Naturalization Raymond Crist, Washington, DC, June 30, 1923, entry 26, box 399, file 20/2, RG 85, NARA.

15.Annual Report of the Commission of Naturalization, 1923, p. 13.

16. Thomas Griffing, District Director of Naturalization, St. Louis, MO, to Commissioner of Naturalization, Apr. 3, 1929, entry 26, box 399, file 20/2, RG 85, NARA.

17. Nora H. Reardon, “Derivative Citizenship of the United States–the Law, Procedure, and Practice in its Determination, and in the Issuance of Documentary Evidence of Such Status.” (lecture, INS Course of Study for Members of the Service) Jan. 7, 1943, pp. 14-15.

18. Naturalization Examiner’s Guide, Applications for Certificates of Citizenship, Documentary and Other Evidence (INS, Nov. 1, 1964), pp. 8-20 to 8-25 (TM 8-1-70).

Certificates of Derivative Citizenship are issued only by INS, not by the courts. To apply for a certification of citizenship, submit INS Form N-600 to your local district office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Source: archives.gov

On July 27, 1919, an African American teenager drowned in Lake Michigan after violating the unofficial segregation of Chicago’s beaches and being stoned by a group of white youths.

His death, and the police’s refusal to arrest the white man whom eyewitnesses identified as causing it, sparked a week of rioting between gangs of Black and white Chicagoans, concentrated on the South Side neighborhood surrounding the stockyards.

When the riots ended on August 3, 15 white and 23 Black people had been killed and more than 500 people injured; an additional 1,000 Black families had lost their homes when they were torched by rioters.

Did you know? In the summer of 1919, Richard J. Daley, who served as Chicago’s powerful mayor from 1955 until his death in 1976, was a 17-year-old member of an Irish-American organization called the Hamburg Athletic Club. Though an investigation later identified the club among the instigators of the rioting, Daley and his supporters never admitted that he participated in the violence.

For the complete article: history.com

So, what’s so sad is that there is no mention of his name or the conditions aka temperature that would make a black teen and friends try to have fun…least we talk about that poor child…was a child, referred only as Williams!