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.



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.



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?



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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?



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.



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



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.



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?



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.



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?



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.



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



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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



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.”



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



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.]

narrator: judge betty fletcher · narrator: judge betty fletcher interviewer: maria mcleod ... like...

Documents