Narrator: Judge Betty Fletcher · Narrator: Judge Betty Fletcher Interviewer: Maria McLeod ... like...
-
Upload
nguyenquynh -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Narrator: Judge Betty Fletcher · Narrator: Judge Betty Fletcher Interviewer: Maria McLeod ... like...
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
1
Final Copy, Interviewee changes incorporated.
Narrator: Judge Betty Fletcher
Interviewer: Maria McLeod
Date: August 27, 2008
Transcriber: Teresa Bergen
[Begin Track One.]
McLeod: Today‟s date is Wednesday, August 27, 2008. My name is Maria McLeod, oral
historian, and I‟m here with Judge Betty Fletcher. We are at Sixth and Seneca, Park
Place, the twenty-first floor, in the Judge‟s office. Thank you for doing this today, Judge
Fletcher. Can you say, for the recording, your full name, date of birth, and where you‟re
from?
Fletcher: My full name is Betty Binns Fletcher. I was born in Tacoma, Washington
March 29, 1923.
McLeod: Can you tell me, in brief, what has been your occupation? And could you also
explain the nature of your particular involvement with state and national campaigns for
and against the Equal Rights Amendment. We‟ll get to this in more detail later, but I‟d
like the readers to know, up front, the nature of your involvement.
Fletcher: Well, I have a law degree, and I practiced law for twenty-three years. Then I
was appointed by President Carter to the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. When I
was a lawyer, I became active in the women‟s rights movement. I was the co-chair of the
committee to get the Equal Rights Amendment for the state constitution passed as well as
get the Legislature to ratify the federal Equal Rights Amendment. As a member of the
Women‟s Council, appointed by Governor Evans, we worked on various issues that we
thought were important for women, but we focused on the Equal Rights Amendment,
which cured many things, such as making a woman an equal manager with her husband
of the community property. Giving her the capacity for credit and all manner of things.
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
2
McLeod: Prior to becoming a lawyer, what was your background? What can you tell me
about your upbringing?
Fletcher: Well I was the daughter of a lawyer. He practiced in Tacoma, Washington. He
was a very intelligent man, and he had been a Rhodes Scholar. I was fascinated from a
very early age with what my father did. He would let me go down to the office with him
on Saturdays. Occasionally, if he had an interesting case, I was even allowed to skip
school and go to trial with him. So from a very early age, I knew that I wanted to be a
lawyer.
I was a good scholar. I went off to Stanford on a scholarship when I was sixteen. I
graduated when I was nineteen, having a double major in history and prelaw. In my last
two years in school, I was allowed to take courses over at the law school so that I
completed the equivalent of one year‟s law school.
McLeod: How were you allowed to go to law school before completing a formal
application procedure?
Fletcher: Well, things were kind of informal in those days. Also, the men were all
peeling off to the war at that time, so that the law school had lost most of its students. So
I think that had it been otherwise, they would not have allowed this. But the dean said,
“Well, you‟re going to find it very difficult, but I‟ll let you try.” [laughter]
McLeod: And were you the only woman in your class?
Fletcher: At that time at the law school in Stanford, I was the only woman.
McLeod: And what year was this? Do you remember?
Fletcher: Well, it would have been in 1941, ‟42.
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
3
McLeod: I know that people often get asked this question, when they‟re the first to do
something, but I‟ll ask it anyway. What was your experience like as the only woman in
law school, or what was the pre-law program, at Stanford?
Fletcher: There I didn‟t sense any discrimination at all. I was working very hard. Indeed,
I found it difficult, but I was able to get top grades with a lot of hard work. No I didn‟t, at
that time, sense any discrimination.
McLeod: Did your mother also work or go to school?
Fletcher: She was a stay-at-home homemaker, but she was an artist, and she was
working in watercolors. In fact, when we children were grown, she became very active in
her painting, and had many awards from juried shows. She was quite a person.
McLeod: So tell me a little bit about entering the university. How did you end up at the
University of Washington Law School?
Fletcher: Well, when I married my husband, we agreed that I would be able to get back
to law school at some point. So when the war ended, he was in the Navy. We went back
to Stanford, and we both entered Stanford Law School. But our little boy, who was then
about nine months old, became very seriously ill and had to have a serious operation. I
dropped out of school. I just couldn‟t leave him to anybody else‟s care.
So Bob finished law school, and we came up to the Northwest, where he practiced
law in Seattle. We decided that we would have all the children that we wanted to have,
and then I would go back to law school. So I started back to law school in 1954. I didn‟t
want to postpone it any longer, although our youngest was only about nine months old at
the time that I went back to school.
McLeod: And what kind of law were you interested in studying at that time? Did you
have a particular focus?
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
4
Fletcher: No.
McLeod: No? What was it that attracted you to the study of law? I know you said you
got to watch your father‟s cases. But what held your interest in studying law?
Fletcher: I think I was attracted to the intellectual challenge of puzzling out the legal
principles. I was kind of cerebral at that time, and I wasn‟t thinking as much about what
the law could do for people, which I became very much aware of later.
McLeod: There is one thing I just want to ask, and it might really be off base. But I was
also thinking about the era during which you attended law school, and the era leading up
to law school. Was there any relationship between World War Two and the Korean War,
both of which took place in that time period, and your interest in law school?
Fletcher: No.
McLeod: Okay. Every once in a while I like to swing out and remember what was
happening historically at that time. So you graduated law school in 1956, and you‟re only
one of three women to do so in your class. That‟s correct?
Fletcher: In the class, that‟s right.
McLeod: What was your relationship to other students in law school? Did you have a
particular group of women who supported each other, or how did that work?
Fletcher: We women were quite different in that, we were friendly, but not what you
would call close friends. I had a very rigorous schedule. So I was commuting from
Tacoma, while working very hard. So when I was not in class, I was really concentrating
on my courses. So that first year, I didn‟t have really much contact – I was pleasantly
talking with students around me – but didn‟t, at that time, form any close associations.
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
5
There was one person in our class who was quite a tease, and he would always say,
“Well, here comes Mom.”
And then, when it got around to what my grades were at the end of the first year,
all of a sudden there was quite a bit of interest in getting me into their study groups. So I
did join one study group and work with some students on classes that we were in.
But at the time, I didn‟t really feel discriminated against. The professor called on
me just like they called on the men. And, as I say, I was so concentrating and really
making good use of my time while I was at school, that there wasn‟t any time for much
socializing.
McLeod: So this was in the mid „50s? You were maybe thirty years old. This might have
been 1953 when you entered law school? Or ‟54?
Fletcher: ‟54.
McLeod: ‟54. So you‟re thirty-one. And you had four children at the time?
Fletcher: Uh huh.
McLeod: And that was why that person would call you “Mom”? He would tease you?
Fletcher: Right.
McLeod: So you didn‟t experience much discrimination. But why do you suppose there
weren‟t more women in law school at the time?
Fletcher: Well it was always thought that it was a men‟s profession, and that women
wouldn‟t really be welcome in the profession. But my father had the sense that women
can do it just as well as men, and they can do anything they want in this world. He was a
little bit, I think, unrealistic.
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
6
When the discrimination really hit me was when I went out to get a job. I told the
professor who was in charge of kind of lining up interviews for the graduating students
that I was interested in practicing in Seattle, and I would like to have some interviews.
But I didn‟t hear anything. The other students were going off on interviews.
I was walking down the faculty corridor, and I heard his big, booming voice. His
door was open. He said, “Well, you wouldn‟t consider a woman, would you?” So of
course I knew that that was not going to be a fertile entrée into the job market.
So I got the names of the firms where my fellow students were interviewing, and I
would go in with my resume, cold turkey, and say to the secretary, the receptionist, that I
wanted to see the hiring partner. I would always get in to see the hiring partner because
the receptionist thought that I was coming to take a secretary‟s job. They didn‟t know
who was going to get fired. So I would have a pleasant interview with the lawyer. But it
always ended up, they‟d say, “Oh, what a remarkable resume. My, you must be very
proud of it. But you know, there isn‟t any place in the practice of law for a woman with
four children. It just wouldn‟t mix.”
So I didn‟t get any job offers until one firm, the Preston Thorgrimson, Horowitz at
that time. Young Jim Ellis, who was a partner, interviewed me. He was quite interested in
my resume. We struck it off in a friendly sort of way. He insisted that the other partners
talk with me. They gathered around, and we talked. Then one of them said, I think it was
Dick Thorgrimson, “Well, you know, Charlie isn‟t here. Let‟s face it. Charlie would
never accept a woman in the firm.”
I went out the law school kind of deflated and discouraged. I talked with a
Professor Shattuck who knew a lot about the firms downtown. He sympathized with me.
He said, “Well, Charlie comes to the Law Review Banquet. Charlie Horowitz is his
name. You come and I‟ll make sure you sit by him. And you sell yourself.”
And so, the rest of the story was that I got the job. It wasn‟t because I sold
myself. It was because he found out that my father was John Binns, and in regard to that,
he said, “This Jewish boy,” referring to himself, “would never have gotten a Rhodes
scholarship if it hadn‟t have been for your father.” That‟s how I got a job.
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
7
McLeod: [laughs] That and your good grades, and your impressive resume. There was
one detail in your story that I got caught up on. How did the interviewer at the other firm
know that you had four children when you were applying for the job?
Fletcher: Well, it was right on my resume.
McLeod: Oh, it was right on your resume?
Fletcher: Right. Yeah, I didn‟t want to conceal anything.
McLeod: Interesting. Do you think they would have asked you anyway?
Fletcher: Oh, they could ask anything in those days. They would have asked if I was
married, you know.
McLeod: All those things. Exactly. Because this was before laws were put into place that
wouldn‟t allow such discrimination.
Fletcher: That‟s right. It was before 1963, before the Civil Rights Act passed.
McLeod: Yeah, that‟s right. So, at what point did you become editor of the King County
Bar Bulletin?
Fletcher: It was, I think, in my second year with the firm.
McLeod: How did that impact your career and your relationship? Or did serving as
editor have any relationship to issues other women lawyers were tackling?
Fletcher: Not at that time. But it gave me the opportunity to get acquainted in the legal
community, which wasn‟t huge at that time. I would go around and talk with the judges
about cases that they might think would be interesting to report. I talked with lawyers
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
8
about different activities. So it gave me a real connection with different people in the
community. It gave me my entrée into bar activities, and it allowed me to eventually
become the president of the bar.
McLeod: Then, at some point, you became active in the Children‟s Home Society in
Washington. I wondered, was that where your interest in women‟s issues began?
Fletcher: Well, I think as soon as I found out how discriminatory the job market was, and
the treatment that a woman lawyer got, from that moment on, I thought well things are
not as they should be. Women should be treated equally, and they should have equal job
access. It was not easy for me to begin to recognize. It hadn‟t really come upon me until I
got out of school.
McLeod: Did you see a relationship, when that came upon you, did you see a
relationship between that and the emerging civil rights movement? Or had that not come
into play yet?
Fletcher: Well in this sense, you know, the „60s was the ferment for getting rights for
blacks, and women began to perk up. “How about us”?
McLeod: Then, as a lawyer, did you think about new laws that needed to be developed to
address these issues?
Fletcher: Oh, of course.
McLeod: And what were the conversations you were having with other lawyers about
these issues? Your husband was a lawyer as well, right?
Fletcher: Yes. He was teaching at the law school.
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
9
McLeod: So did you two have conversations about the problems of discrimination and
the laws that needed to be developed to address the issues?
Fletcher: My husband and I didn‟t talk law at home. We were busy with four kids. And
when I went home, it was their time. We weren‟t talking about it, really. But of course he
was very aware of the trouble I had getting my first job, and the discrimination in the
market. We talked about those things from time to time. But a small group of women
lawyers began to get together. And that was when NOW nationally became organized.
And we had a state chapter of NOW. So we began to talk about all of the issues that
women had.
I can remember one of them, what about pregnant women? Must they quit their
job? When must they quit their job? Could they continue to work? And it was interesting.
There were varying viewpoints. It was, “Oh, of course when a woman gets pregnant, she
really ought to get out of the workforce.” So it‟s very interesting to see–
McLeod: You mean, among women, there were varied opinions?
Fletcher: Yes. Yes.
McLeod: Some thought pregnant women needed to get out of the work force, and some
thought oh, she could stay and work, and what‟s wrong with that? [laughs]
Fletcher: It was very interesting that we would waste our time debating something like
that.
McLeod: But that was something that happened to women. They could not be pregnant
and work, usually they lost their jobs.
Fletcher: Oh, that‟s right. Yeah.
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
10
McLeod: So you‟re talking about the era when NOW was established. I believe NOW
was established nationally in 1966, and I believe the Seattle chapter was formed in 1970.
Then you talked about a group of women lawyers getting together. Were you referring to
Washington Women Lawyers?
Fletcher: Not at that time. Not at all. We were kind of the nucleus of NOW.
McLeod: Oh, I see. Were you a member of NOW?
Fletcher: Yes.
McLeod: And did you hold any positions in NOW?
Fletcher: No.
McLeod: Could you not do so as a lawyer?
Fletcher: Well I just was active in it, but I didn‟t seek any office. I didn‟t really aspire to
that. I had enough going on. I was active in the Bar Association, and the women – what
year was the Women‟s Commission created?
McLeod: You mean the Washington Women‟s Commission?
Fletcher: Yes.
McLeod: By Governor Evans in 1971.
Fletcher: So I was very delighted to be appointed to that.
McLeod: So I wanted to go back to, just for a second, were you also active in
Washington Women Lawyers organization?
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
11
Fletcher: Yeah, I forget when that began to put itself together.
McLeod: You know, I have here 1969. You mentioned over the phone that initially you
were a little ambivalent toward Washington Women Lawyers.
Fletcher: Well, as to whether we should form it separately or just to forge ahead, pushing
our issues in the regular Bar. It was very important for us to make our presence known in
the regular Bar.
McLeod: But then you changed your mind, didn‟t you?
Fletcher: Well, as we began to talk about issues that were probably so centered on
women‟s needs that we probably did need a separate women‟s lawyers group to push
those things. That didn‟t mean that we shouldn‟t keep active in the regular Bar.
McLeod: You could have both things occurring simultaneously, yes. Weren‟t you the
first woman president of the King County Bar Association?
Fletcher: Yes.
McLeod: And around what time did that occur?
Fletcher: Well I think that that must have been about 1972.
McLeod: At least by 1972, because I did find a Seattle Times article where it says
“Kickoff for Equal Rights Campaign.” So this is June of 1972. And it says here, “Betty
Fletcher, president of Seattle King County Bar Association, and Glenn Terrell, president
of Washington State University have been named chairpersons for the campaign to pass
the Equal Rights Amendment.” They include a list of twenty prominent men and women.
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
12
But we skipped a little bit past NOW. I think you mentioned that you were active
in NOW, the nucleus of NOW, what became NOW, in 1970, before you became co-
chairperson of the campaign. So I want to ask you, what was NOW‟s relationship to the
Legislature? Because I think NOW might have had a little something to do with
Governor Evans beginning this commission, the Women‟s Commission.
Fletcher: I‟m not quite sure what the catalyst was for his forming the Women‟s
Commission. But there was beginning to be a lot of conversation about women‟s rights,
and some articles in the paper. And his wife, Nancy, was a very forward looking person.
So I suggest she might have had some influence in the recommendation that the
Women‟s Council be formed.
As to the work of NOW, it was very interesting. When we were lobbying the
Legislature in connection with the federal Equal Rights Amendment being passed, and
working also on abortion reform, the national chapter wanted to send some people in to
organize us to really push it in a loud way. I had worked with a woman named Dottie
Smith who used to lobby in the Legislature for a variety of good causes. She‟d been
lobbying long before I had any experience lobbying, and she said to me, “Keep it low
key. Go and do your homework and find out which issues each legislator is interested in.
To the extent that you can offer support for something they‟re interested in, if you can do
it with conscience, do it. Then almost make what you want, „by the way, I want your
support.‟”
So that was our thrust. That was the way we decided to organize ourselves. The
last thing we wanted was a strident group of people coming into the state from NOW to
help us with what we were doing as quietly as we possibly could.
McLeod: Hmm, interesting. So do you remember approaching any specific legislators
yourself? Kind of a quid pro quo thing?
Fletcher: You know, it‟s kind of a blur. We each had a list and knew what we could do.
Joel Pritchard, who was a liberal Republican in the legislature, was a great help to me. I
remember talking to him from time to time. He was the one who really was able to push
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
13
the Abortion Reform Act through the Legislature. He told me, he said, “We‟re going to
have to put it to a vote of the people. But,” he said, “I think I can get it through if that‟s
the way we do it.” He was really the focus there.
McLeod: Were you confident that could happen if that went out to a vote? You‟re
talking about Referendum 20, which I believe might have been passed in 1970, because I
think it came three years before Roe vs. Wade, in this state.
Fletcher: We were far from confident. I was going around the state, doing radio and
public appearances with Jack Metcalf, who opposed it. So we had lively debates and
quite a bit of hostility on the east side of the mountains, and a lot of friendly support on
the west. So no, we were far from sure. The night of the election, I can remember we got
together a little place out on East Lake. It was kind of a tavern restaurant place, and we
were listening to the results on the radio. It just squeaked through.
McLeod: You and maybe some of your friends from NOW were there?
Fletcher: Yes. I forget who all was there, but there were a group of us.
McLeod: That‟s so interesting. I‟m trying to imagine your life at the time. You working
in this firm, maybe hoping someday to make partner, but also you were traveling and you
were on the radio, addressing the issues?
Fletcher: I got there in ‟56, and I was a partner several years later. So in the early „60s, I
was a partner.
McLeod: So you were already a partner. But wasn‟t there conflict? Was the firm aware
of your activity?
Fletcher: Well, it was kind of interesting. They were pretty tolerant of what I was doing.
But that didn‟t mean that I didn‟t carry a full work load at the office.
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
14
McLeod: How did you manage that?
Fletcher: Well, I‟d get up at four in the morning to get everything organized for the kids.
We‟d always have breakfast together at seven, with the children. Then we‟d have dinner
when I got home, which I tried to be home by eight o‟clock.
McLeod: Can you tell me the relationship between Referendum 20, and the work you did
towards that, and then the work you ended up doing for the Equal Rights Amendment?
Fletcher: It‟s all kind of a blur.
McLeod: [laughs] Well it seems like, when I do look at this historically, there‟s a lot of
activity between 1970 and 1973. I imagine it does blur.
Fletcher: I remember in regard to the abortion rights work, the office wasn‟t exactly too
pleased. We got some kind of angry phone calls, so that wasn‟t the most pleasant thing in
the world. But nobody said I couldn‟t do it. Frankly, I had not realized how much
hostility would come out in connection with that. I was pretty naïve.
McLeod: Did you feel most people in your circle agreed with abortion rights, and so you
weren‟t exposed to the other side? Or what happened?
Fletcher: My friends and my partners didn‟t seem to care one way or another, frankly. So
the hostility was coming from the outside.
McLeod: And when you debated with Jack Metcalf on that, what was the basis of his
side of the argument against abortion rights?
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
15
Fletcher: Well, the whole thing that you see today. That it‟s murder. The right to life
means there‟s no interference with any of the processes once conception has taken place.
That that‟s what God wanted. You know, all that.
McLeod: Biblical. And what was your response to that?
Fletcher: Well, my response was that a woman needed to have control over her own
destiny, and that, in fact, there really was no human being until they reached a viable
stage, that to talk about murder was absurd. You know, those kinds of arguments. I‟m
sure I framed them more articulately at that time.
McLeod: You mentioned some issues that you thought about or worked on. Right around
this time, some laws started getting passed even prior to the ERA. One was the abortion
reform. And then, let‟s see. Equal credit for women was enacted the same year the ERA
was passed.
Fletcher: That was started by our commission. That was a bill that we introduced.
McLeod: So tell me about being named on that commission, and some of the work that
you did. Talk about the Women‟s Commission, which was begun by executive order of
Governor Evans.
Fletcher: Right. I was appointed to it. I hadn‟t lobbied for the position. In fact, I didn‟t
even know that he was going to form the commission. But I was very pleasantly surprised
when I got a call and was asked to join it. We had a couple of organizational and tentative
meetings to discuss what our role should be and what we should be doing. We decided
right away that our goal should be to work for law reform, that that was the way we could
begin to get rights for women. One of the issues that was front and center was inability of
women to get credit on their own. The husband could undo any transaction that the
woman had entered into. That was why we couldn‟t get credit. So that was the genesis of
our first endeavor, was to get that law corrected.
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
16
And then we began to talk about what we should do next. I think I told you that
Mr. Williams, a member of the commission who was head of personnel for the telephone
company had said, “Well, it‟s clear. We should just go for an Equal Rights Amendment.
Then we can disband.”
McLeod: Because he saw that as an umbrella for all these other legal reforms that you
were going to do.
Fletcher: That‟s right. That‟s right.
McLeod: And what was your reaction to that?
Fletcher: Well, women are, and I think it‟s a good characteristic, we want to turn over
every possibility and consider the upsides and the downsides, and consider whether this
would be coming too fast and too soon, whether we should take some other minor steps
in between. But after we talked it all out we decided, yeah, we‟ll go for it.
McLeod: Did you look at what other states were doing at the time?
Fletcher: We may have, but I don‟t remember a specific conversation about it.
McLeod: So, once you decided you were going to go for it, what happened then? How
did you organize? What were your steps? I know it‟s a long time ago.
Fletcher: It‟s so long ago, and I don‟t really remember, except that I was asked to co-
chair a committee that would go out to get the state Equal Rights Amendment passed.
President Terrell was a very dignified individual and very good speaker. And we made
some joint appearances, I know.
McLeod: Who was this?
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
17
Fletcher: The president of Washington State.
McLeod: Oh, Glenn Terrell. President Terrell. I‟m sorry. I thought you said Preston
Terrell. So you went out together. And did you know him before this time?
Fletcher: I think I had met him. My father had graduated from Washington State and was
a regent. So I think I had maybe met him on occasion.
McLeod: How did you two become co-chairs of the Equal Rights Campaign? You and
President Terrell were co-chairs together. How did that happen?
Fletcher: I don‟t remember. [laughter] I guess they thought I was articulate.
McLeod: Because you were working within the commission, both of you were. And then
somebody asked you to, or you volunteered yourselves to do it?
Fletcher: I don‟t think I volunteered. [laughter] I just know that we worked very hard.
But it‟s kind of interesting. I guess my personality is such that when I finish something,
I‟m through with it, and I kind of put it aside. There are lots of things that people are
always reminding me that I did or said, and I have no memory of it.
McLeod: Well I found an article that shows the two of you. You‟re with Gayle Barry,
who was assistant then to Attorney General Slade Gordon. The three of you are having a
conversation, it appears. It might have been that the photographer caught you in this
moment. You look so young. You were forty-nine here in 1970, a young looking forty-
nine. But anyway, you headed a list, it said, of prominent men and women throughout the
state. Some of the people, maybe I‟ll mention some names, might trigger memories. Do
you remember people like Peggy Maxy, Lois North–
Fletcher: I remember Lois well.
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
18
McLeod: And Marjorie Lynch, Mary Ellen McCaffree, David Sprague.
Fletcher: Yeah, I knew David very well.
McLeod: So do you have any anecdotes or memories of any of the people you worked
with?
Fletcher: I‟m not very helpful here.
McLeod: That‟s okay. Also you said you went around the state to speak with Glen
Terrell. So what were the arguments for the ERA that you were proposing? Do you
remember that?
Fletcher: Well part of it was defensive, to say that it wasn‟t going to do this and it wasn‟t
going to do that. But ever since women got suffrage, it seems like they got nowhere in
society. It took a positive declaration in the constitution to mean that they in fact were
equal citizens. That would be kind of the little core of what we were doing, what we were
saying.
McLeod: So there were concerns on the opposite side–
Fletcher: I remember that I got a little history together on the suffragettes and that kind
of thing, that I would try to interject some stories.
McLeod: So you probably talked about the origination of the Equal Rights Amendment
and Alice Paul, and the right to vote, and what this had come out of, and things like that.
Fletcher: Yes, I‟m sure.
McLeod: [laughs] So I‟m going to just mention some things, and you might not recall.
So there were arguments, I think, against the ERA because they thought if the women
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
19
would end up doing men‟s work and have to lift the same amount that men would have to
lift. And there would be co-ed bathrooms. There was the issue of the draft, of course,
which was a very real issue, because the Vietnam War was then happening. There was
also the biblical argument that man was the head of the family, and the woman should be
subservient and all those things. So do those trigger any memories of maybe the way you
might have responded?
Fletcher: Well I know that we would be questioned. I know that we had responses to
each of those. And as to some of them, we said that that was not going to be what would
come from the result of passing the Equal Rights Amendment, and that it would take a
long time to work out the issues that would be affected. And that we clearly recognized
the biological differences between men and women, and that women were going to be the
mothers of the world. And that it might be perfectly appropriate to have certain protective
laws that aimed at protecting health, protecting the capacity to raise children, and that
those things would not be inconsistent with the Equal Rights Amendment. I can
remember all sorts of crafting appropriate answers.
McLeod: How do you think that you were able to get the Equal Rights Amendment
passed in Washington State?
Fletcher: Well I think that we got the federal one passed by guile.
McLeod: [laughs] You mean refusing to give up, and putting yourself out there?
Fletcher: By making friends with the legislators, lobbying them in a very intelligent way.
That‟s how we got it through the Legislature. As to the vote of the people, I think that
Washington has a fairly educated voter base. Women were clearly going to be in favor of
equal rights. Actually more women vote in the polls than men. So we have the base, if the
arguments were presented properly, to get it passed.
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
20
McLeod: In terms of interaction with the Legislature, there are newspaper photos, such
as this one, showing many women in the gallery. I think it might have been during the
Senate‟s meeting. There‟s just a heavy presence. It seems to me that people were quite
diligent and very organized.
Fletcher: Yes. Yes.
McLeod: And that‟s how you recall it?
Fletcher: Yeah. The women are good organizers, and good followers through.
McLeod: I actually read somewhere that a legislator was so tired of being lobbied that he
had put a sign on his door that said, “No More Women‟s Libbers.”
I wanted to ask you, do you know these opposing groups? Happiness of
Motherhood Eternal, HOW, Happiness of Womanhood, League of Housewives, STOP
ERA, which became Eagles Forum, which was Phyllis Schlafly‟s campaign. There are
arguments about family, femininity, privacy, women in the military, same sex marriage.
Do you remember these groups and their arguments, or debating with any of these
groups?
Fletcher: Well, I don‟t think we debated against any of the groups as such. It‟s kind of
funny; Metcalf was the only guy that I remember facing one-on-one. In a friendly way,
we kind of worked as a team, each taking a side. But I remember a lot about Phyllis
Schlafly. But I don‟t remember one-on-one against, there may have been some of that.
McLeod: What do you recall about Phyllis Schlafly‟s campaign?
Fletcher: Well you know, she is just so anti-feminist, and anti-rights for women, and
such extreme positions, it‟s hard not to remember her.
McLeod: And she was a lawyer, as well.
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
21
Fletcher: Yes.
McLeod: But she came a little bit after what came in this state. Because I think she
started her campaign right after the ERA was passed in Washington. I think she began
around 1972.
I wanted to ask you about the argument related to the Fourteenth Amendment, which was
ratified in 1868 and was intended to secure rights for slaves. In regard to the ERA,
people argued that the Fourteenth Amendment grants equal rights to all, and that the ERA
wasn‟t necessary. What do you remember about that argument?
Fletcher: Well, it could be a legitimate argument if people had taken that to mean that,
but everybody assumed it to be rights for blacks, and that was the way it was interpreted.
McLeod: Before House Joint Resolution 61 was passed in 1972, I think November of
‟72, becoming active in January of ‟73, do you remember trying any cases yourself, or
talking to people who tried cases, discrimination based on sex, or divorce cases or
community property rights cases, rape cases, and how were those cases defended? How
did you work those cases prior to the ERA being passed?
Fletcher: Well actually, in our law firm, our caseload was business oriented, representing
businesses. I don‟t remember any of our clients being sued for discrimination. That just
wasn‟t in it. We didn‟t handle divorce. I was forced to handle a few divorce cases for
some of our most affluent clients, and the firm would always say, “Well, Betty, you can
do this better.” But it was not the kind of practice that we were involved in at all.
However, but as a kind of an advisor to our business clients, when the laws
changed from 1963, I was called upon to give some advice. Then when the Equal Rights
Amendment passed here, further advise. I was able to persuade what was then President
Seattle Trust and Savings Bank – I was representing the trust department and I was on
their board then – if they would pay careful attention to promoting competent women and
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
22
reviewing all their pay scales, that they would avoid suits. The then president took that
advice. Some of the other banks were sued. I don‟t know whether you remember that.
McLeod: Oh, my goodness. That was you.
Fletcher: Yeah.
McLeod: Do you happen to remember – I‟m asking you this because you‟re a judge and a
lawyer, although you might not have had any experience with this at all – but in regard to
labor laws, initially the AFL-CIO opposed the ERA, arguing that its adoption would hurt
working women by doing away with state protective laws. Do you remember addressing
this, or this coming up at all?
Fletcher: Well I remember a fellow who had been on the board of the Children‟s Home
Society of Washington was the, I‟m forgetting, sadly, what his title was. But he was the
state chair of quite a big union organization. I went to him and asked him for support for
the Equal Rights Amendment. We had had very friendly relations and he‟d been very
forward looking for some of the things for Children‟s Home Society. So I was quite
shocked when he just said, “Well, no. That‟s nothing that our union would want to get
involved in.”
McLeod: Did you ask him why?
Fletcher: Well, I‟m sure we had a discussion. But it was just a firm no.
McLeod: Can you tell me, we kind of moved past it pretty quickly, but the Children‟s
Home Society of Washington, what your involvement was. I can‟t help but think you
had some involvement there that enabled you to see things that women were up against,
especially single mothers.
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
23
Fletcher: Yes, I certainly did. When I began to help them, the organization was mostly
two things. It was an adoption agency, and it had a service for disturbed children,
children who were in abusive family settings, or had psychological problems one way or
another. They provided both psychiatric and residential care. So those were the two
things that they did.
And then, of course, I began to be aware of these just conflicted young women
who hadn‟t had abortions, they hadn‟t been available to them, putting up their babies for
adoption, which seemed to be the only choice at that time. In talking with them, we
would talk pros and cons. And it became clear to me that there ought to be a climate
where it was possible for a woman to keep her child, not to be ostracized in society, to be
able to move ahead and keep the child. I became very aware of that.
So when abortion reform became an issue, I persuaded the Children‟s Home
Society to write a statement, which went into the voters‟ pamphlet supporting the right to
abortion. Within the agency, we established a unit specifically to counsel women as to the
choices that they had and help them to make intelligent decisions. Some, of course, still
wanted to give up the baby for adoption. Others wanted abortions. Others wanted to keep
them.
McLeod: Sounds like the precursor to Planned Parenthood, in a way.
Fletcher: Well, Planned Parenthood existed at that time.
McLeod: Sorry. You‟re right. Because one of these women I have listed here in my notes
was head of Planned Parenthood at the time.
I wanted to ask you also if you remember a certain moment. You might not
remember this, but it‟s something I read about. In terms of the ERA, 1972 was a big year.
And on the federal level, it was passed in the Congress in March of ‟72. In the House in
‟71, and March, ‟72, and then sent to the states for ratification. Washington State, HJR61,
the state‟s ERA, goes on the ballot November of ‟72, as we said. It was passed by 3,369
votes only and is enacted the following January, ratifying the federal ERA in the process.
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
24
However, there were moments when its passage at state level didn‟t seem
guaranteed, particularly when it went to the Senate. The final Senate vote was postponed
for two days when it was taken back to the caucus rather than risk rejection. Homosexual
marriage, and quote “lack of sex discrimination cases” were cited as two reasons the
resolution might not pass. Do your remember any of that?
Fletcher: You know, I remember being asked to give an opinion as to what effect it
would have on same-sex bathrooms. [laughs] I think I said that for biological reasons,
men and women would keep separate bathrooms. And I thought it had no effect one way
or another on homosexual relationships. But I don‟t remember, I remember it was a tense
time, but I hadn‟t remembered specifically that it went back into the caucus. But I think I
did give some kind of a legal reason that they could use.
McLeod: Right. There‟s another article that I found in the Spokesman Review. This is
October 27, 1972. And you were even made remarks regarding what you called
“misstatements” in the voters‟ pamphlet concerning HJR61. You said, “The pamphlet
says „No distinctions were made between men and women,‟ but I can assure you physical
differences will surely exist. Women will always have babies, and men will always have
greater physical prowess.” And then, what else did you say? You mention that you
foresaw no changes in marriage laws, divorce settlements, or governmental aid to
mothers of dependent children, because these things generally are decided on need and
what‟s best for the child. That doesn‟t speak exactly to what you were saying, but kind of
on the same lines. So you were consulted kind of in the final hours of what happened in
the senate.
Fletcher: Yes. Uh huh.
McLeod: Then something happens, which I‟m sure you remember well. In the time
allowed for the states‟ ratification of the ERA, between ‟72 and 1982, which had been
extended from 1979, there were nine more states needed to ratify. And then three of those
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
25
states rescinded the ratification. So the ERA never did become ratified. Was there any
work that you did on the national level?
Fletcher: I did nothing on the national level, I just wrung my hands.
McLeod: What were you doing at that time?
Fletcher: What year would that have been?
McLeod: That would have been between ‟72 to 1982, those years.
Fletcher: Well, I was practicing law very hard. Then I went on the bench, of course, in
‟79.
McLeod: Right. And we talked a little bit about Phyllis Schlafly and the STOP ERA
campaign. I think the tides turned a little bit. Do you remember nationally, even though
you weren‟t active, looking at the sidelines and seeing what had happened?
Fletcher: Well, it was very clear that the country was becoming more conservative and
less enchanted with women and their problems.
McLeod: [laughs] Oh, I forgot to ask you, I‟m sorry, I meant to ask you a little bit
earlier. When the law passed here in Washington State, Gayle Barry had the charge of
changing the language of the laws. What do you recall of that time?
Fletcher: Well I remember that Attorney General Slade Gordon ordered that all of the
laws be looked at, and every law that had the word “man” or “woman” in it had to come
up for review. I think they passed a kind of generic statute that corrected just a lot of this.
But as I mentioned to you, there were some funny things like “manholes” that didn‟t get
changed to “man and womanholes.”
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
26
McLeod: Or “personholes” or whatever. [laughs] Things like that. In 1979, President
Carter, as you said, named you to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Can you tell me in
regard to the opinions you‟ve written and the rulings you‟ve made, how issues of civil
rights and women‟s rights in particular have come into play? And you actually handed
me Santa Clara County Transportation Commission vs. Johnson, but can you talk a little
bit about those things?
Fletcher: Well you know, I‟ll let you read those cases on your own. But generally, we‟ve
had many cases involving discrimination, employment discrimination, come into the
courts. And we‟re finding, and we also get a lot of them for age discrimination.
Companies have been very resistant and fought very hard to perpetuate the way they have
always operated. So it‟s a constant battle in our courts.
I don‟t know whether you watched the convention last night.
McLeod: I did.
Fletcher: Lilly Ledbetter was there. She‟s the woman who lost at the Supreme Court (pay
equity case) in a five-four decision in 2007. She‟d been a manager, been a very good
employee of Goodyear, I guess it is. She was always paid less than men, and didn‟t find
out about it for a long, long time. The court said she should have sued within six months
of the first discriminatory paycheck she got. Now Congress has tried to rectify that for the
future. The House passed it handily. But the old Senate, because of the resistance of the
Republicans, who still, in effect, have veto power, did not. But we get cases similar to
that. And it‟s quite a constant battle.
I was on one panel with two other women. You can see it. I‟ve got a picture up
there on the wall. I think it was the first panel of three women appellate judges ever. But
we heard a case that involved discrimination against apprentices in the carpenter trade.
Someone suggested that we ought to recuse ourselves. Our answer was, well, would men
be unbiased? We‟re judges. We‟ll look at the facts, and we‟ll decide the case, which we
did. We found that they were not allowing women into the apprentice program for all
Fletcher Transcript – Final
ERA – Oral History Interview
27
kinds of reasons that wouldn‟t stand up. Once in, they were harassed. So we‟ve had a lot
of cases that involve that.
McLeod: Do you still think that the ERA needs to be ratified on the national level?
Fletcher: Well, I think in face of the statutes that we have, probably as a practical matter,
not necessary. But as a statement of rights, I think we should have it. You know, the
Canadian constitution has a very good section on women‟s rights. I would like us to be
able to stand up and say that we have one, too.
McLeod: Is there anything else that you want to add today? I know that you only have
until 12:15 and we‟ve taken it to 12:10.
Fletcher: Well, I think you‟ve probably about drained me out.
McLeod: [laughs] I‟m so sorry.
Fletcher: No. [laughs]
McLeod: I thank you so much for sharing the history of what you‟ve done.
[End Interview.]