The years 1918 and 2020 have been prominent in our national discourse lately, as Americans’ endured devastating pandemics during each year. A less talked about commonality? There were general elections that had to be carried out in both years, despite the impact of the Spanish Influenza in 1918 and COVID-19 in 2020.
There are at least two crucial differences between the elections of 1918 and 2020, however. First, the 1918 election was a midterm election, as opposed to the presidential election held in 2020. Secondly, the degree to which U.S. citizens were able to vote remotely differed vastly. One of the primary strategies used to overcome the health risks posed by COVID-19 during last year’s election was mail-in voting. Around 65.5 million people voted via mail – with a total of 101 million voting early – in 2020. Meanwhile, although soldiers fighting in World War I were technically able to vote via mail (though logistical difficulties abounded), mail-in ballots were not readily available to the general public in 1918. Without widespread absentee voting, Taylor Research Group wondered, how did the country navigate the election?
Another crucial difference between the 1918 and 2020 elections: in November 1918, the 19th Amendment had not yet been ratified. The photo above depicts a 1918 suffragette demonstration. Source: Library of Congress
In our last blog, TRG mined archival newspaper articles to learn how the Spanish Influenza affected public libraries in the fall of 1918. We followed a similar process when exploring how the United States conducted a midterm election while battling the Spanish flu.
In what was perhaps the pandemic’s first impact on the 1918 election, political candidates were forced to adjust their campaigning styles. During the weeks preceding Election Day, the traditional form of campaigning – speech-making – was considered dangerous. In some cities with strict health ordinances regarding public gatherings, it was even made illegal. Most candidates gamely complied with the imposed restrictions and turned to newspaper advertisements, letter-writing, and telephoning to attract supporters. However, there were a few exceptions. One political hopeful notably believed that local bans were motivated by partisan malfeasance rather than genuine safety concerns. Democrat Alfred Smith of New York, who was hoping to unseat the incumbent Republican state governor, accused Republican officials of prohibiting public gatherings in upstate cities to “prevent the spread of Democratic doctrine rather than the spread of Spanish influenza.”
This cartoon appeared in the November 2, 1918 edition of The Seattle Star. During that time, political orators were often called “spellbinders.” Source: Chronicling America
In light of restricted campaigning and the ongoing health crisis, there was a fear that voter turnout would be low. In response, certain physicians and government officials published statements urging citizens to vote, declaring that voting was a safe and patriotic activity. The mayor of Los Angeles promised that “voting booths would be kept sanitary and carefully supervised,” and remarked that “there is no more unpatriotic act than to neglect to exercise the franchise which is the right of the citizen.” At the time, with troops fighting overseas in World War I, invocations of patriotism were particularly powerful. Some experts argue that it was due in part to the surge in civic pride generated by the war that there were no serious national discussions about postponing the election despite the hurdles posed by the influenza.
A plea to eligible voters, featured in the November 4, 1918 edition of The Sacramento Bee. Source: Chronicling America
Another challenge that emerged in the days leading up to the election was a shortage of election officials. Many officials resigned out of fear of contracting influenza. Others selected to serve as officials were already sick, had family members who were ill, or had recently passed away. On October 31, 1918, the Oakland Tribune reported that 25% of election board members had submitted their resignation. As a result, arrangements were made to draft replacement officers. California state laws reportedly allowed for an interesting practice: absent election officers could be replaced on the morning of an election “from among the bystanders in the vicinity of any polling place.”
Election day was Tuesday, November 5, 1918. Some cities implemented special public health measures for the day of election. In Toledo, Ohio, residents were prohibited from gathering in the board of elections or newspaper offices, and warned that crowds would be dispersed by the police. The mayor and the health commissioner ordered restaurants to shut down on election day, fearing that the public would swarm restaurants since “saloons and other places where the public might congregate” were already closed due to the Spanish Influenza. The city of Toledo also banned the sale of liquor “at any hour Tuesday when state and county votes are being cast and counted.”
Public health measures were employed at polling stations across the country as well. Some polling centers implemented extensive safety protocols. Voting areas were ventilated and election booths were set up outdoors. The use of face masks was mandated, with threats of fines for those who failed to don one. Voters were encouraged to arrive early, and inspectors at polling stations were charged with limiting congestion. Other cities imposed fewer or less strict measures. In San Francisco, it was reported that the “Health Department made no provision for spraying or otherwise disinfecting the [voting] booths.”
In turn, members of the public both abided by and violated the imposed safety measures. The San Francisco Chronicle wrote that many “voting guests were confessedly suffering from influenza,” some of whom expressed regret at leaving their sickbeds to vote. Meanwhile, in Oakland, California, around a dozen men were arrested in the county clerk’s office for “wearing [their] masks [as] bibs.” The offenders claimed that “they were seriously handicaped (sic) by their masks in argumeits (sic) over election returns with more fluent talkers.” Despite this alibi, the men were fined $10 for violating the mask mandate (equivalent to around $185 in 2021 dollars).
Around 40% of eligible voters cast their ballot on November 5, 1918. During the previous two midterms, around 50% of eligible voters participated in the election. Historians believe that this lower turnout was due to the pandemic as well as the war. This marks another difference between the 1918 and 2020 election. The Council on Foreign Relations reported that voter turnout in 2020 was the highest in 120 years: 66.7% when measured as a percentage of the voting-eligible population. More than 159 million Americans voted, marking the largest total voter turnout in U.S. history and the first time that more than 140 million people voted.
Overall, the 1918 election failed to generate significant change in the voting apparatus of the United States. Adopted health and sanitation measures were cast aside in ensuing election years, and the influenza did not spur a transition to remote voting. Indeed, it was not until the convergence of COVID-19 and the 2020 general election that a significant portion of the country voted remotely. The unprecedented usage of mail-in ballots during last year’s election yielded challenges to state election laws from the right, who had fears related to fraud, and, in response, voter suppression concerns from the left. These conversations remain ongoing both in political and legal arenas. As a result, it seems that the events of 2020 may be poised to influence voting laws, and leave a legacy in a way that the 1918 midterms did not.