What did Congress do during the 1918 flu pandemic?
Historian John Barry called 1918 the worst year in history. It “saw not only the butchery of World War I but a worldwide influenza pandemic,” he wrote in The Atlantic. “Credible estimates of the death toll range from nearly 2 percent to well over 5 percent of the entire world population.”
Even though several changes were made, Congress still carried on. For example, the House’s public seating closed from October 7 to November 4.
Just like in 2020, the parties split control between its two chambers. Republicans held a one-vote majority of 215 to 214 in the House, in addition to six independent or third-party representatives. Democrats held a strong 54 to 42 Senate majority.
What did Congress do in 1918? And how does it compare to what Congress is doing during this potentially equivalent moment in 2020?
Increasing doctors & Quorum Calls
As World War I raged, many doctors were called overseas, either in their capacity as doctors or as soldiers. This left a critical shortage of physicians domestically when the flu epidemic hit. To help, Illinois Rep. Martin D. Foster (D-IL23) sponsored a bill to boost the Public Health Service, which treated sailors in ports and duty stations across America.
At least half of House members are supposed to be present in order for a vote to take place, a longstanding practice called a “quorum.” Yet when this bill came up for a House vote fewer than 50 of the 435 members were in attendance. What to do?
Under House rules, the vote could still take place even with the depleted number of members, so long as no individual member formally requested to “call a quorum.” Under that technicality, any House member could ask for attendance, to officially ensure that the requisite number of members were physically there. In practice, this could allow even a single member who opposed the legislation to prevent it from being voted upon.
One of those opponents was Rep. Joseph Walsh (R-MA16). Walsh was about to call a quorum, which would have prevented the vote from taking place. In the nick of time, a few other members convinced Walsh not to, persuading him that such a brazen measure during a national emergency would be playing with fire. The bill then passed the House by a mere 29 to 19.
If this sounds familiar, it’s because last week, a very similar scenario played out in the House. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY4) announced that he would call a quorum for the House’s $2 trillion stimulus bill, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. A majority of lawmakers were thus forced to come back to Washington, D.C. from all over the country to be physically present for the vote.
Massie earned bipartisan condemnation when he couldn’t be talked out of his plans. However, since there was a majority, his call had no effect. President Trump even demanded that Rep. Massie be thrown out of the Republican Party.
Earlier this week, still another similar scenario played out in the state House of Vermont. The state was going to vote on an emergency health package related to the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) epidemic, with most members voting remotely for safety reasons. But state Rep. Cynthia Browning called for a quorum to be physically present, forcing lawmakers to immediately drive into the capital Montpelier from all over the state.
The backlash was so strong that state House Speaker Mitzi Johnson removed Browning from a key position on the Ways and Means Committee.
Women’s voting rights
When the flu epidemic hit, the 19th Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote had already passed Congress earlier that year. However, it was still a few months away from ratification by the states.
In the interim period, a congressional proposal would have explicitly limited women’s suffrage to federal elections, while allowing states the option to still restrict suffrage if they chose.
On September 30, the Senate voted that idea down by 65 to 17. Republicans voted unanimously to favor, while Democrats did so by a smaller majority of 28 to 17.
Women’s rights in the Constitution are still very much in the news right now, with a potential 28th Amendment guaranteeing equal rights for women under federal law. It passed both chambers of Congress in the early 1970s, and supporters argue it reached the requisite number of states with Virginia’s ratification in January. Opponents counter that ignores a 1979 deadline listed in the original text. The issue is expected to be resolved in court.
Infected Congress members
The flu epidemic hit close to the Capitol Building. Ultimately, three members of the House ultimately died of the Spanish flu: Jacob M. Meeker of Missouri, Edward Robbins of Pennsylvania, and William P. Borland of Missouri.
In 2020, four House members and one senator have tested positive for COVID-19 so far: Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL25), Ben McAdams (D-UT4), Joe Cunningham (D-SC1), and Mike Kelly (R-PA16), plus Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). There have not yet been any deaths from the virus. We’re tracking COVID-19 in Congress at https://www.govtrack.us/covid-19.
Campaigns
During the autumn of an election year, Congress rarely votes on much legislation, prioritizing their reelection campaigns instead. In 1918 and 2020, congressional campaigns were definitely altered.
With most public gatherings banned in 1918, many Congress members campaigned primarily remotely, such as with letters in the mail or columns in newspapers. Similarly, many elected officials are now holding “virtual town halls”.
Voting in 1918 was done almost entirely in person, which naturally presented a problem. Accordingly, some states or localities lifted their lockdowns or bans on public gatherings specifically for Election Day. Infections and fatalities subsequently increased, likely as a result.
That appears far less likely to occur this time around, should the pandemic still be continuing by November. In 2018, about 40% of voters voted absentee, early, or by mail. There’s discussion about Congress passing a law to make no-excuse mail-in ballots mandatory nationwide, and one of the COVID-19 stimulus packages included funding to increase vote by mail options.
Elections
Turnout plummeted in 1918. 50% of the voting-eligible population had turned out in the 1914 midterms, but turnout fell to 40% in the 1918 midterm. However, that might have been part of a broader trend unconnected to the epidemic. Turnout was actually lower in the subsequent 1922, 1926, and 1930 midterms than in 1918.
Republicans won huge in 1918. After holding a one-vote House majority previously, they now held a commanding 240 to 192 majority. And after being the minority party in the Senate previously, they now held a slim 49 to 47 majority.
It’s difficult to say whether the flu epidemic actually changed the 1918 election results. The president’s party usually loses congressional seats during the midterms anyway: indeed, that’s happened during the four most recent midterms of 2018, 2014, 2010, and 2006. With a new Republican congressional majority, Democrat Woodrow Wilson found many of his legislative priorities stymied during the final two years of his presidency.
Most prominent was the League of Nations, an international group founded in the immediate aftermath of World War I. Wilson wanted the U.S. to join, but the Republican-majority Senate voted it down a year later by 39 to 55, in November 1919. Republicans were concerned that the League would allow the United States to be drawn into war without congressional approval. The United States would subsequently join the League’s spiritual successor the United Nations in 1945.
This article was written by GovTrack Insider staff writer Jesse Rifkin.
Like our analyses? Want more? Support our work! And continue to track COVID-19 in Congress at https://www.govtrack.us/covid-19.
