The Harris/Walz candidacy and the apostrophe

With the Harris/Walz candidacy fully on the rails, I thought it prudent to review some apostrophe basics, as it has stuck a stick in the spokes of many communicators stymied by what seem to be equally bad choices. Should “Harris” have an apostrophe followed by an “s” or simply an apostrophe? An apostrophe after a “z” followed by an “s” feels weird but it seems right, right?  

The Wall Street Journal’s treatment of the bugaboo is “Harris’s and Walz’s,” but the Associated Press at last check has been printing it as “Harris’ and Walz’s.” The New York Times, which generally subscribes to AP, has been using the WSJ model.

 

There is much crankiness in the editorial community for the AP to move fully to the WSJ model. In AP style, the possessive form of “Paris” is “Paris’s” and the possessive form of “King Charles” is “King Charles’s.” The AP must fully adopt the possessive of “Harris” as “Harris’s” or it will have a shambles on its hands. 

 

The important thing is not to fear the Harris/Walz candidacy’s possessive usage. You must, however, do something. You can’t just leave it like it is with an intended possessive sense and slink away thinking everything’s fine. If you write, “Harris and Walz candidacy promises to be…” you are assaulting your readers. 

Here are your options and my opinions on them:

 

Harris’s and Walz’s: My favorite. A little bulky, but worth it.
Harris’ and Walz’s: Perfectly fine, though a little precious.
Harris’ and Walz’: Writer is a chaos agent and must be stopped.
Harris and Walz: Unclear and reflective of sloth.