Following on my post last week about the campaign to replace Andrew Jackson on the twenty-dollar bill, Gail Collins had a column the New York Times making the case that it was past time for a change. She quotes my observation about the rather more equitable situation with regards to gender and currency in Australia. The forthcoming Jane Austen note from the Bank of England is another example that bears looking at. Why not rotate through a cast of historical figures? Regardless of issues concerning representation, it is hard to understand why US paper currency has been so slow to change. As far as I can tell the only relevant part of the law (31 U.S. Code § 5114 )that governs the actual design of US paper money specifies:
United States currency has the inscription “In God We Trust” in a place the Secretary [of the Treasury] decides is appropriate. Only the portrait of a deceased individual may appear on United States currency and securities. The name of the individual shall be inscribed below the portrait.
Beyond this it would seem that the Secretary of the Treasury and Bureau of Printing and Engraving have broad discretion to design the currency as they see fit, although consultation with Congress would undoubtedly be necessary for any major changes.
At any rate, given that the momentum to make a change seems to be building, and with Andrew Jackson lined up as the most likely target, the question of course turns to who should replace him. The New York Times has been hosting a lively discussion on the subject here. Gail Collins has me backing Amelia Earhart, which was a name I mentioned in the course of a larger discussion about possible candidates. Quite simply, I think Earhart would be a good choice because she seems able to garner broad popular support for what might devolve into a bruising political process. Whatever happens, we’ll keep updating and adding our two cents to this fascinating story.