1902 California gubernatorial election
.svg){kind=small} | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
 County results Pardee: 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% Lane: 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| Elections in California |
|---|
 |
The 1902 California gubernatorial election was held on November 4, 1902, to elect the governor of California. George Pardee won the election with 48.06% percent of the popular vote and was the Governor of California until 1907. This was the first time since 1863 that the Republican Party retained control of the governorship in California.
Republican primary campaign
[edit]At the beginning of the year 1902, Henry Gage the 20th governor was still favored to be re-elected, if not at least re-nominated.[1] However, he and his administration were embroiled in a series of issues, the most prominent of which was the San Francisco plague of 1900–1904. His poor handling of the situation, alongside accusations of being a pawn of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, led to a steep decline in his popularity.[2] Despite this unpopularity, Gage still held a significant amount of power within the State Republican Party, and observers noted that he might force his way through to the Republican Party nomination.[3]
George Pardee sent out word early in the election year that he would be running for the Republican nomination.[4] He would later make his announcement official at a dinner in Oakland on January 27, 1902.[5] At the time Pardee was working as a Regent of the University of California.[6] In the beginning stages of the campaign, many observers doubted the seriousness of Pardee as a candidate, with some thinking that he was a stalking horse candidate, or that his infighting among those in the Republican Party would prove too costly in the primary.[7][8]
The Republican State Convention would begin in San Jose on April 14, 1902.[9] Governor Gage was still the favorite to win the nomination, despite his political scandals. He received several endorsements from Republican groups, and even received cheers from the crowd at the convention.[10] However, as the convention continued, Gage received more negative press and more delegates were unclear as to whether they would support his renomination.[11] While Gage lead in the initial ballots at the convention, he would steadily lose support, until the sixth and final ballot when George Pardee was nominated, with 515 votes.[12]
Democratic primary campaign
[edit]At the beginning of the year, the favorites for the Democratic nomination were Barney Murphy, Washington Dodge, and Franklin K. Lane. Franklin Knight Lane was the San Francisco City Attorney at the time of his campaign announcement.[13] Despite not being favored to win the nomination at first, Lane would become the favorite to win by August 1902.[14] On September 3, 1902, Lane was officially nominated by the Democratic Party, doing so on the first ballot.[15] At the convention the Democratic Party would develop a progressive platform, which included low tariffs, the direct election of U.S. Senators, and support for the use of referendum, recall, and initiatives on the ballot in California. The party also supported the exclusion of Chinese immigration, as well as the establishment of a mine bureau, and labor bureau.[16]
Third party campaigns
[edit]In September 1902, the Socialist Campaign Committee of California nominated Gideon S. Brower for Governor of California. Brower was born in New York in 1849. He moved to California in 1886 and began working as a carpenter in Fresno. He joined Carpenters Union, Local 701 and became a member of the Socialist Party shortly after.[17]
On August 28, 1902, the Prohibition Party nominated Theodore D. Kanouse as their candidate for governor.[18] Kanouse was a former Civil War veteran, who served as a musician in the 6th Wisconsin Infantry Regiment and in the 3rd Wisconsin Light Artillery Regiment. After the war he retired to California, where he was active in the temperance movement.[19]
General election campaigns
[edit]After both parties selected their nominees, newspapers around the State of California stated that Pardee was likely to win. The Santa Cruz Sentinel stated,"Pardee's majority over Lane will be nearer 40,000 than 20,000. This is a Republican year on the Pacific Coast."[20] George Pardee opened his general election campaign with a speech in Oakland, where he stated,
I am glad whenever labor adds another cent to its daily wages, and I rejoice when the laboring man is able to cut off another hour from the time that he spends at his daily toil. I am glad and I rejoice over these things because I know that the more wages the laboring man gets the better citizen he will be, the more able he will be to send his children to school and to our university, and to make of them our future great men. For it is a fact that our greatest men have sprung from the common people. And I rejoice when the hours of labor are shortened because I know that with shorter hours the workingman will have more time to give to his wife and his children. And I know, from my own experience, that the more time a man can give to his wife and children the better man he is. And I believe that shorter hours and higher, wages will give us better citizens and make us all more prosperous. And I am convinced that there is but one way for the working people to gain their ends, and that is by a wise, intelligent and firm organization. There never was a better exemplification of the motto "United we stand, divided we fall" than in the case of the working people.
For this speech, Pardee was praised by standing ovation from a supportive crowd.[21] Franklin K. Lane opened his general election campaign on September 22, 1902, in the city of San Diego. It was there that he addressed a large crowd and stated
I am extremely pleased that I came here to open my campaign. I am pleased that I decided to begin at the bottom and work up as I have done in many other things. I am glad that I have done this because I have gained a larger conception of the state as I came down through the mountains and the valley and broke through the foothills at last onto the inimitable surf line which lands us here. My ideas have grown and I have expanded on the trip and have a larger idea of the state which I would serve. It is a wonderful state, with her high mountains, deep valleys and remarkable scenery, and I feel tonight that I would be a governor for the whole state and not for any section of it. My eye is not fixed on San Francisco as some have said, but I have my eye looking as from Eagle Peak at the Yosemite, looking broadly over the whole state. I would not be a man of the narrow kind. I would not be a governor of the narrow kind.[22]
Both candidates pledged to campaign "cleanly", with no mudslinging to occur between the two campaigns.[23] Lane and Pardee would cross the state, speaking in major cities and looking for support and endorsements from newspapers, civic groups, and labor unions across California. Towards the end of the campaign, and near the date of the general election, many papers believed that the election of George Pardee was likely if not inevitable.[24]
Results
[edit]| Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | George Pardee | 146,332 | 48.06% | −3.62% | |
| Democratic | Franklin Knight Lane | 143,783 | 47.22% | +2.19% | |
| Socialist | Gideon S. Brower | 9,592 | 3.15% | +3.15% | |
| Prohibition | Theodore D. Kanouse | 4,636 | 1.52% | +0.03% | |
| Scattering | 130 | 0.04% | |||
| Majority | 2,549 | 0.84% | |||
| Total votes | 304,473 | 100.00% | |||
| Republican hold | Swing | -5.81% | |||
Results by county
[edit]| County | George C. Pardee Republican |
Franklin K. Lane Democratic |
Gideon S. Brower Socialist |
Theodore D. Kanouse Prohibition |
Scattering Write-in |
Margin | Total votes cast[25] | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # | % | # | % | # | % | # | % | # | % | # | % | ||
| Alameda | 13,915 | 57.54% | 9,022 | 37.31% | 1,009 | 4.17% | 238 | 0.98% | 0 | 0.00% | 4,893 | 20.23% | 24,184 |
| Alpine | 87 | 61.70% | 52 | 36.88% | 1 | 0.71% | 1 | 0.71% | 0 | 0.00% | 35 | 24.82% | 141 |
| Amador | 1,376 | 50.98% | 1,290 | 47.80% | 16 | 0.59% | 17 | 0.63% | 0 | 0.00% | 86 | 3.19% | 2,699 |
| Butte | 2,271 | 49.64% | 2,171 | 47.45% | 57 | 1.25% | 76 | 1.66% | 0 | 0.00% | 100 | 2.19% | 4,575 |
| Calaveras | 1,726 | 53.47% | 1,456 | 45.11% | 35 | 1.08% | 10 | 0.31% | 1 | 0.03% | 270 | 8.36% | 3,228 |
| Colusa | 606 | 33.74% | 1,158 | 64.48% | 23 | 1.28% | 9 | 0.50% | 0 | 0.00% | -552 | -30.73% | 1,796 |
| Contra Costa | 2,122 | 49.82% | 1,950 | 45.79% | 155 | 3.64% | 31 | 0.73% | 1 | 0.02% | 172 | 4.04% | 4,259 |
| Del Norte | 368 | 50.97% | 305 | 42.24% | 43 | 5.96% | 6 | 0.83% | 0 | 0.00% | 63 | 8.73% | 722 |
| El Dorado | 1,160 | 45.53% | 1,320 | 51.81% | 49 | 1.92% | 19 | 0.75% | 0 | 0.00% | -160 | -6.28% | 2,548 |
| Fresno | 3,677 | 44.17% | 4,080 | 49.01% | 371 | 4.46% | 196 | 2.35% | 1 | 0.01% | -403 | -4.84% | 8,325 |
| Glenn | 540 | 37.60% | 880 | 61.28% | 11 | 0.77% | 5 | 0.35% | 0 | 0.00% | -340 | -23.68% | 1,436 |
| Humboldt | 3,447 | 57.54% | 2,316 | 38.66% | 135 | 2.25% | 87 | 1.45% | 6 | 0.10% | 1,131 | 18.88% | 5,991 |
| Inyo | 435 | 47.80% | 427 | 46.92% | 25 | 2.75% | 23 | 2.53% | 0 | 0.00% | 8 | 0.88% | 910 |
| Kern | 1,748 | 39.92% | 2,539 | 57.98% | 66 | 1.51% | 23 | 0.53% | 3 | 0.07% | -791 | -18.06% | 4,379 |
| Kings | 956 | 46.98% | 999 | 49.09% | 51 | 2.51% | 28 | 1.38% | 1 | 0.05% | -43 | -2.11% | 2,035 |
| Lake | 636 | 43.83% | 747 | 51.48% | 32 | 2.21% | 34 | 2.34% | 2 | 0.14% | -11 | -7.65% | 1,451 |
| Lassen | 540 | 53.62% | 434 | 43.10% | 29 | 2.88% | 4 | 0.40% | 0 | 0.00% | 106 | 10.53% | 1,007 |
| Los Angeles | 17,471 | 56.07% | 11,121 | 35.69% | 1,140 | 3.66% | 1,402 | 4.50% | 26 | 0.08% | 6,350 | 20.38% | 31,160 |
| Madera | 737 | 42.63% | 929 | 53.73% | 46 | 2.66% | 16 | 0.93% | 1 | 0.06% | -192 | -11.10% | 1,729 |
| Marin | 1,646 | 57.47% | 1,168 | 40.78% | 44 | 1.54% | 6 | 0.21% | 0 | 0.00% | 478 | 16.69% | 2,864 |
| Mariposa | 526 | 38.23% | 828 | 60.17% | 15 | 1.09% | 7 | 0.51% | 0 | 0.00% | -302 | -21.95% | 1,376 |
| Mendocino | 2,129 | 46.67% | 2,340 | 51.29% | 44 | 0.96% | 49 | 1.07% | 0 | 0.00% | -211 | -4.63% | 4,562 |
| Merced | 742 | 37.16% | 1,179 | 59.04% | 55 | 2.75% | 21 | 1.05% | 0 | 0.00% | -437 | -21.88% | 1,997 |
| Modoc | 478 | 43.77% | 592 | 54.21% | 12 | 1.10% | 10 | 0.92% | 0 | 0.00% | -114 | -10.44% | 1,092 |
| Mono | 292 | 50.43% | 278 | 48.01% | 7 | 1.21% | 2 | 0.35% | 0 | 0.00% | 14 | 2.42% | 579 |
| Monterey | 1,924 | 48.03% | 1,957 | 48.85% | 36 | 0.90% | 89 | 2.22% | 0 | 0.00% | -33 | -0.82% | 4,006 |
| Napa | 1,941 | 54.08% | 1,563 | 43.55% | 45 | 1.25% | 38 | 1.06% | 2 | 0.06% | 378 | 10.53% | 3,589 |
| Nevada | 2,000 | 48.65% | 1,901 | 46.24% | 142 | 3.45% | 68 | 1.65% | 0 | 0.00% | 99 | 2.41% | 4,111 |
| Orange | 2,338 | 54.41% | 1,536 | 35.75% | 194 | 4.51% | 229 | 5.33% | 0 | 0.00% | 802 | 18.66% | 4,297 |
| Placer | 1,800 | 49.09% | 1,722 | 46.96% | 104 | 2.84% | 41 | 1.12% | 0 | 0.00% | 78 | 2.13% | 3,667 |
| Plumas | 669 | 56.89% | 498 | 42.35% | 1 | 0.09% | 7 | 0.60% | 1 | 0.09% | 171 | 14.54% | 1,176 |
| Riverside | 2,216 | 63.44% | 807 | 23.10% | 314 | 8.99% | 156 | 4.47% | 0 | 0.00% | 1,409 | 40.34% | 3,493 |
| Sacramento | 4,661 | 45.66% | 5,154 | 50.49% | 310 | 3.04% | 81 | 0.79% | 1 | 0.01% | -493 | -4.83% | 10,207 |
| San Benito | 680 | 40.84% | 945 | 56.76% | 12 | 0.72% | 28 | 1.68% | 0 | 0.00% | -265 | -15.92% | 1,665 |
| San Bernardino | 3,103 | 55.76% | 1,932 | 34.72% | 291 | 5.23% | 237 | 4.26% | 2 | 0.04% | 1,171 | 21.04% | 5,565 |
| San Diego | 3,182 | 49.26% | 2,517 | 38.97% | 657 | 10.17% | 97 | 1.50% | 6 | 0.09% | 665 | 10.30% | 6,459 |
| San Francisco | 24,106 | 40.13% | 33,743 | 56.18% | 1,993 | 3.32% | 164 | 0.27% | 61 | 0.10% | -9,637 | -16.04% | 60,067 |
| San Joaquin | 3,413 | 48.14% | 3,488 | 49.20% | 120 | 1.69% | 68 | 0.96% | 1 | 0.01% | -75 | -1.06% | 7,090 |
| San Luis Obispo | 1,628 | 43.56% | 1,972 | 52.77% | 53 | 1.42% | 84 | 2.25% | 0 | 0.00% | -344 | -9.21% | 3,737 |
| San Mateo | 1,426 | 50.25% | 1,383 | 48.73% | 28 | 0.99% | 1 | 0.04% | 0 | 0.00% | 43 | 1.52% | 2,838 |
| Santa Barbara | 2,150 | 52.43% | 1,722 | 41.99% | 178 | 4.34% | 51 | 1.24% | 0 | 0.00% | 428 | 10.44% | 4,101 |
| Santa Clara | 6,078 | 49.40% | 5,745 | 46.70% | 209 | 1.70% | 265 | 2.15% | 6 | 0.05% | 333 | 2.71% | 12,303 |
| Santa Cruz | 1,819 | 44.84% | 2,009 | 49.52% | 127 | 3.13% | 101 | 2.49% | 1 | 0.02% | -190 | -4.68% | 4,057 |
| Shasta | 1,741 | 41.53% | 2,291 | 54.65% | 120 | 2.86% | 40 | 0.95% | 0 | 0.00% | -550 | -13.12% | 4,192 |
| Sierra | 708 | 58.03% | 506 | 41.48% | 5 | 0.41% | 1 | 0.08% | 0 | 0.00% | 202 | 16.56% | 1,220 |
| Siskiyou | 1,643 | 44.20% | 1,998 | 53.75% | 56 | 1.51% | 19 | 0.51% | 1 | 0.03% | -355 | -9.55% | 3,717 |
| Solano | 2,366 | 45.83% | 2,411 | 46.70% | 310 | 6.00% | 76 | 1.47% | 0 | 0.00% | -45 | -0.87% | 5,163 |
| Sonoma | 4,192 | 48.95% | 4,097 | 47.84% | 182 | 2.13% | 89 | 1.04% | 4 | 0.05% | 95 | 1.11% | 8,564 |
| Stanislaus | 1,069 | 40.96% | 1,458 | 55.86% | 39 | 1.49% | 44 | 1.69% | 0 | 0.00% | -389 | -14.90% | 2,610 |
| Sutter | 815 | 52.61% | 704 | 45.45% | 15 | 0.97% | 15 | 0.97% | 0 | 0.00% | 111 | 7.17% | 1,549 |
| Tehama | 1,138 | 45.98% | 1,255 | 50.71% | 45 | 1.82% | 37 | 1.49% | 0 | 0.00% | -117 | -4.73% | 2,475 |
| Trinity | 565 | 45.38% | 662 | 53.17% | 16 | 1.29% | 2 | 0.16% | 0 | 0.00% | -97 | -7.79% | 1,245 |
| Tulare | 1,683 | 38.56% | 2,397 | 54.91% | 223 | 5.11% | 62 | 1.42% | 0 | 0.00% | -714 | -16.36% | 4,365 |
| Tuolumne | 1,227 | 40.44% | 1,682 | 55.44% | 94 | 3.10% | 31 | 1.02% | 0 | 0.00% | -455 | 15.00% | 3,034 |
| Ventura | 1,844 | 54.01% | 1,405 | 41.15% | 115 | 3.37% | 49 | 1.44% | 1 | 0.03% | 439 | 12.86% | 3,414 |
| Yolo | 1,447 | 44.41% | 1,695 | 52.03% | 75 | 2.30% | 40 | 1.23% | 1 | 0.03% | -248 | -7.61% | 3,258 |
| Yuba | 1,129 | 51.46% | 1,047 | 47.72% | 12 | 0.55% | 6 | 0.27% | 0 | 0.00% | 82 | 3.74% | 2,194 |
| Total | 146,332 | 48.06% | 143,783 | 47.22% | 9,592 | 3.15% | 4,636 | 1.52% | 130 | 0.04% | 2,549 | 0.84% | 304,473 |
Counties that flipped from Democratic to Republican
[edit]Counties that flipped from Republican to Democratic
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ "STRONG PLEA FOR GAGE AMD PERKINS Hon George A. Knight Gives His Views on the Political Situation. Speaks in Glowing Terms of Our Senator and Praises Good Work He is Doing. Governor Has a Strong Hold Upon the People and Without Question Will be Re-Elected". Vol. LVIII, no. 47. Humboldt Times. 23 February 1902. Retrieved 2 February 2024.
- ^ "Henry Gage". The Governor's Gallery. California State Library. Retrieved 2 February 2024.
- ^ "SAN FRANCISCO HOLDS BANNER". Vol. 87, no. 69. San Francisco Call. 7 February 1902. Retrieved 6 February 2024.
- ^ "POLITICAL POTPOURRI". Vol. 15, no. 105. San Bernardino Sun. 4 January 1902. Retrieved 2 February 2024.
- ^ "Wants to Be Governor*". Vol. 87, no. 59. San Francisco Call. 28 January 1902. Retrieved 2 February 2024.
- ^ "George C. Pardee Papers". Online Archive of California. Bancroft Library. Retrieved 6 February 2024.
- ^ "BELSHAW SCORES PERKINS. Accuses Senator of Double Dealing With Stephen F. Kelly". Vol. XCI, no. 63. San Francisco Call. 1 February 1902. Retrieved 6 February 2024.
- ^ "DR. PARDEE'S CHANCES FOR GOVERNORSHIP He Has a Harder Fight This Year Than Four Years Ago When He Was a Poor Third". Vol. XXII, no. 264. Riverside Morning Enterprise. 1 February 1902. Retrieved 6 February 2024.
- ^ "GETTING READY FOR CONVENTION". Vol. 87, no. 132. San Francisco Call. 11 April 1902. Retrieved 19 February 2024.
- ^ "GOVERNOR GAGE IS WILDLY CHEERED BY CONVENTION OF REPUBLICAN CLUBS". Vol. XXIX, no. 196. Los Angeles Herald. 15 April 1902. Retrieved 19 February 2024.
- ^ "GAGE'S CANDIDACY GOES GLIMMERING". Vol. 87, no. 163. San Francisco Call. 12 May 1902. Retrieved 19 February 2024.
- ^ "PARDEE GETS NOMINATION Was Chosen to Head Ticket for California Republicans on Sixth Ballot". Vol. XXII, no. 156. Colusa Daily Sun. 27 August 1902. Retrieved 20 February 2024.
- ^ "Barney Murphy is Favorite". Vol. 87, no. 130. San Francisco Call. 9 April 1902. Retrieved 20 February 2024.
- ^ "Sizing - Up Their Strength are the Political Leaders of the State". Vol. 8, no. 110. Evening Transcript. 4 August 1902. Retrieved 20 February 2024.
- ^ "IT IS LANE. He Will be the Standard Bearer of the Democracy In the Coming State Campaign.--Was Nominated on the First Ballot". Vol. IX, no. 105. Hanford Journal (Daily). 3 September 1902. Retrieved 20 February 2024.
- ^ Olson, Keith W. (1979). BIOGRAPHY OF A PROGRESSIVE Franklin K. Lane, 1864-1921. GREENWOOD PRESS. ISBN 0-313-20613-9.
- ^ "Socialist Candidate for Governor" (PDF). No. 424. Advance. September 20, 1902. Retrieved 20 February 2024.
- ^ "Prohibition Convention - Nominates A Governor". Vol. 16, no. 156. San Bernardino Sun. 29 August 1902. Retrieved 24 February 2024.
- ^ "Theodore D. Kanouse Biography". Prohibitionists.org. Partisan Prohibition Historical Society. Retrieved 24 February 2024.
- ^ "How California Voted". Vol. 37, no. 122. Santa Cruz Sentinel. 6 September 1902. Retrieved 17 March 2024.
- ^ "GEORGE C. PARDEE DECLARES HIMSELF THE FRIEND OF LABOR AND STANDS ON HIS RECORD ADVOCATE OF A SHORTER WORK-DAY AND BETTER PAY FOR THE TOILER". Vol. 87, no. 98. San Francisco Call. 6 September 1902. Retrieved 17 March 2024.
- ^ "FRANKLIN K. LANE'S CAMPAIGN PROPERLY OPENED DEMOCRATIC RALLY ON THE PLAZA LAST EVENING WAS FULL OF INTEREST. Addresses by A. W. Andrews, F.Q. Finlayson, A. J. Rosborough and the Gubernatorial Candidate —No Pictures on the Wall". San Diego Union and Daily Bee. 23 September 1902. Retrieved 17 March 2024.
- ^ "WILL CONDUCT A CLEAN FIGHT". Vol. 87, no. 103. San Francisco Call. 11 September 1902. Retrieved 17 March 2024.
- ^ "PARDEE CERTAIN OF VICTORY". Vol. 87, no. 147. San Francisco Call. 25 October 1902. Retrieved 19 March 2024.
- ^ a b California Secretary of State. California Blue Book, or State Roster 1903. Sacramento, California: State Printing Office. p. 332. Retrieved 18 July 2024.