Kansas unveils a mural honoring 'rebel women' who campaigned for voting rights
Kansas has a new mural in its Statehouse honoring women who campaigned for voting rights for decades before the 1920 ratification of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted those rights across the nation.
Gov. Laura Kelly and other state officials unveiled the 'Rebel Women' painting that spans an entire wall on the first floor on Wednesday, the anniversary of Kansas' admission as the 34th U.S. state in 1861.
While Kansas Day is traditionally marked with renditions of the official state song, 'Home on the Range,' Wednesday's event also featured the women's voting rights anthem, "Suffrage Song,' to the tune of 'The Battle Hymn of the Republic.'
A 2022 law authorized the mural, and artist Phyllis Garibay-Coon, of Manhattan, in northeastern Kansas, won the contest with a depiction of 13 prominent Kansas suffragists. A few women in the crowd of several hundred people were dressed as 19th century campaigners who were active before statehood.
Kansas prides itself as entering the union as an anti-slavery free state, but it also was more progressive than other states in gradually granting women full voting rights. Women could vote in school elections in 1861 and in city elections in 1887, and the nation's first woman mayor, Susanna M. Salter, was elected in Argonia, Kansas, that year. Voters amended the state constitution in 1912 to grant women full voting rights.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
a day ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump admin must restore AmeriCorps programs in 24 states, judge rules
Her ruling applied only to the Democratic-led states who sued in April to challenge what they said was an unlawful dismantling of AmeriCorps by Republican President Donald Trump's administration. More: What is AmeriCorps? What to know about the latest organization impacted by DOGE cuts Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, a Democrat who helped lead the litigation, in a statement said the ruling safeguards services communities rely on to educate students, preserve parks and care for the elderly from "unlawful and reckless cuts." AmeriCorps did not respond to requests for comment. A White House spokesperson in a statement said Trump "has the right to restore accountability to the entire executive branch, and this will not be the final say on the matter." AmeriCorps' grants fund local and national organizations that offer community services related to education, disaster preparedness, conservation and more. It sends more than 200,000 volunteers out nationally as part of its programs. The states sued after the administration terminated over 1,000 grants and placed 85% of AmeriCorps' staff on administrative leave with the intent to terminate them effective June 24 as part of a push by Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency to shrink the federal government. The cuts impacted $396.5 million in federal funding for AmeriCorps programs and tens of thousands of volunteers nationally. The agency has a roughly $1 billion budget and had more than 500 employees when Trump took office. Democratic state attorneys general argued Trump lacks the authority under the U.S. Constitution to gut AmeriCorps, which was created by Congress, and that the agency failed to follow proper procedures before altering program services. Boardman, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, partially agreed, saying AmeriCorps failed to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking before making major changes. "Because the agency did not provide notice and an opportunity to comment before it made significant changes to service delivery, the States were unable to voice their concerns about these changes," she wrote. But Boardman said the states lacked standing to block the mass job cuts, saying an anticipated delay in their grant applications being reviewed due to reduced staff was not sufficient grounds.
NBC News
3 days ago
- NBC News
Federal judge says prisons must provide gender-affirming care for inmates
A federal judge on Tuesday ruled the U.S. Bureau of Prisons must keep providing transgender inmates gender-affirming care, despite an executive order President Donald Trump signed on his first day back in office to halt funding for such care. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington, D.C., allowed a group of more than 2,000 transgender inmates in federal prisons to pursue a lawsuit challenging the order as a class action. He ordered the Bureau of Prisons to provide them with hormone therapy and accommodations such as clothing and hair-removal devices while the lawsuit plays out. The ruling does not require the bureau to provide surgical care related to gender transitions. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said the Trump administration expects to ultimately prevail in the legal dispute. 'The District Court's decision allowing transgender women, aka MEN, in women's prisons fundamentally makes women less safe and ignores the biological truth that there are only two genders,' Fields said in an email. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the inmates, said the ruling was 'a critical reminder to the Trump administration that trans people, like all people, have constitutional rights that don't simply disappear because the president has decided to wage an ideological battle.' About 2,230 transgender inmates are housed in federal custodial facilities and halfway houses, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. About two-thirds of them, 1,506, are transgender women, most of whom are housed in men's prisons. The named plaintiffs, two transgender men and one transgender woman, sued the Trump administration in March to challenge Trump's January 20 executive order aimed at combating what the administration called 'gender ideology extremism.' The executive order directed the federal government to only recognize two, biologically distinct sexes, male and female; and house transgender women in men's prisons. It also ordered the bureau to stop spending any money on 'any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate's appearance to that of the opposite sex.' Lamberth, appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, said in Tuesday's ruling that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their lawsuit because the bureau did not perform any analysis before cutting off treatment that its own medical staff had previously deemed to be medically appropriate for the inmates. Even if it had extensively studied the issue before deciding to stop gender-affirming care, the decision might still violate the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment's protections against 'cruel and unusual' punishment, Lamberth wrote. The Department of Justice had argued that the judge should defer to the policy decision of a democratically elected president, but Lamberth said a functioning democracy requires respect for 'all duly enacted laws,' including those that blocked the executive branch from acting in an 'arbitrary and capricious' manner. Democratic self-governance 'does not mean blind submission to the whims of the most recent election-victor,' Lamberth wrote. The executive order said it was meant to promote the 'dignity, safety, and wellbeing of women, and to stop the spread of 'gender ideology' which denies 'the immutable biological reality of sex.' But the inmates receiving hormone treatments had little interest in promoting any ideology, and were instead taking 'measures to lessen the personal anguish caused by their gender dysphoria,' Lamberth wrote.
The Independent
30-04-2025
- The Independent
Florida seeks to enforce a law making it a crime for people in the US illegally to enter the state
Florida 's attorney general on Wednesday appealed a federal judge's injunction that temporarily stops authorities from enforcing a new state law making it a misdemeanor for people who came to the U.S. illegally to enter Florida by eluding immigration officials. State Attorney General James Uthmeier and local prosecutors also asked U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami to put her injunction on hold while the order is appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. In her ruling on Tuesday, the judge specified that her order applied to all of the state's local law enforcement agencies, despite a recent letter to the contrary from Uthmeier. The judge also set a hearing in May to determine if Uthmeier should be held in contempt for sending the letter to law enforcement agencies in Florida. The judge had issued a 14-day temporary restraining order on April 4, shortly after a lawsuit challenging the law was filed by the Florida Immigrant Coalition and other groups with support from the American Civil Liberties Union. Williams extended the order another 11 days after learning the Florida Highway Patrol had arrested more than a dozen people, including a U.S. citizen. The lawsuit claims the new law violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by encroaching on federal duties. After Williams issued her extension April 18, Uthmeier sent a memo to state and local law enforcement officers telling them to refrain from enforcing the law, even though he disagreed with the injuction. But five days later, he sent another memo saying that the judge was legally wrong and that he couldn't prevent local police officers and deputies from enforcing the law.
