Speech, Article, Book File Catt, Carrie Chapman Article: "Mrs. Catt on the Election" (1920) Mrs. Catt on the Election The New York Times, Sunday, November 21, 1920 This article by Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt appeared in the Nov. 13 issue of The Woman Citizen The Presidential election was the first test of the universal suffrage in the United States. It will be a long time before all returns are in and before the States will be able to gather and report fully concerning the women's part in the great contest. It is estimated that between 28,000,000 and 30,000,000 of votes were cast as compared with 18,000,000 in 1916. This is the largest vote ever cast in any country. To quote one editorial comment: "The very size of the electorate thus consulted is a most impressive spectacle of democratic government." Calm elections are usual in this country, but it is a fact worthy of comment that not a single election disturbance of any kind has been reported from ocean to ocean. Prohibition, which has come into national effect since the last Presidential election, should doubtless be credited for much of this truly remarkable record; the presence of women voters at the polls completed the assurance of a phenomenally quiet election. It is estimated that the proportional numbers of men and women in the vast electorate, when the entire country is averaged, will be about three women to five men. In many districts more women than men voted, in others more men than women, while 50-50 was the estimate which many election districts reported. That women voted in enormous numbers no one questions. Women voted in all States except Georgia and Mississippi. There the law requiring registration of all voters four months prior to the election barred out women enfranchised by the Federal amendment. In most, if not all, States women worked with party organizations effectively and in large numbers. In those States where suffrage associations have been alert and far-visioned enough to hold non-partisan schools for citizenship, women were trained for intelligent duty as election officials and many thousands of them did serve with distinction. Opponents used to hold up New York with its cosmopolitan population as proof that woman suffrage would only increase the dangers arising from democracy. For the third time New York women served as election officials and as such were present in each of the 2,737 election districts of the city. Each year since women voted has recorded more quiet and more efficiently conducted elections, but the year 1920 marked a distinct change for the better. Men and women have become accustomed to working together, the novelty of political work has worn off and splendid team work was performed. Nowhere were women mistreated and no men have been reported as objecting either to the presence of women workers at the polls or to the quality of their service. The vote came to the women of many States too late for the best preparatory work to be done. Political parties worked to get their own women to register and vote the straight ticket; the League of Women Voters worked to get all women to register, regardless of political faith, and urged them to choose their party affiliations with the aid of reason. Had the vote come earlier, more women would have voted and more women would have been trained for election work. As it was, press and party leaders seen agreed that the work of women in the election was worthily and understandingly done. There were many women candidates for many classes of office. The minority parties as usual were generous in the distributions of nominations to women. Since such party candidates had no chance of winning, interest centered on those put forward by the two dominant parties, one of which was certain of success. It must be noted, however, that the minority of these two parties showed more willingness to nominate women than the majority party, that is, the Republicans in Democratic States and the Democrats in Republican States were particularly attentive to women. The Democrats in Rhode Island nominated Miss Elizabeth Yates for Lieutenant Governor and the Democrats in New York nominated Miss Harriett May Mills for Secretary of State, but Democrats do not get elected in Republican Rhode Island, and no one knew better than Democrats that this would be a Republican year in New York. These were fine types of intellectual and experienced women who wold have rendered able service, but in both cases the party which nominated them did not give them the full party vote and Republican suffragists refused to be deflected from their own party ticket by what they believed to have been a Democratic ruse to beat their party. While a good many independent women voters supported them, there was never a real expectation of their election. The Republicans, whose party was slated to win in those States, put up no women candidates for State offices. There were women candidates for the United States Senate in several States but always representing minor parties and with little or no chance of winning. One woman only was elected to Congress although eight or more were nominated by the two dominant parties. All, with two exceptions, were nominated by the minority party of their Congressional district. These two exceptions are significant. Miss Winifred W. Lufkin, Republican, was nominated in Republican Massachusetts, and Mrs. Helen C. Statler, Republican, was nominated in Republican Michigan. Yet where all went Republican with tremendous majority, Miss Lufkin and Mrs. Statler were defeated, showing clearly enough that the rank and file of the men voters of their own party preferred a Democratic male representative in Congress to a woman of their own party. In Democratic Oklahoma, Miss Alice M. Robertson, anti-suffragist and cafeteria manager, was nominated by the minority Republicans. Apparently neither she nor her party regarded her candidacy seriously. She did not leave Muskogee, her home, and merely advertised her cafeteria and her candidacy in the same modest cards in the newspapers. Lo, the overwhelming Republican landslide swept her into the House -its only woman member. If Michigan Republicans failed to elect their own nominee to Congress, they did not neglect all the women candidates, for two women were elected to the office of County Sheriff, and one woman was elected to the State Senate and several women were elected to the lesser county offices. Two women were elected to the Legislature in New Jersey, both Republicans; and five are reported by the suffrage headquarters as elected to the Legislature of Connecticut, three being Republicans, one Democratic, and one having been endorsed by both parties. New York re-elected Miss Smith, who served the previous term, but failed to elect any of the new candidates, of which there were some fifteen. At [?st] twenty-three women will serve as Republican electors from the States of California, Idaho, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont. In all, probably other Western States have elected women electors but the fact has not as yet been reported either in the press or to the National Headquarters. The number of women elected to State Legislatures is not yet definitely known, but probably the full returns will add a considerable number to the list. This will be especially true in the Western States where it has been customary to elect a few women to the Legislature. Women took a conspicious part in opposing the election of certain Senators and although Senator Smith of Maryland (Democrat) was so opposed, the Republican landslide, rather than the women's work, was probably responsible for his defeat. In the East, the Harding plurality was unprecedented, but failed to carry at the same figure the unpopular and reactionary Senators who distinguish this section. Senator Penrose in Pennsylvania, against whom there was no organized campaign, ran far behind his ticket and the press announce that "the women cut down Penrose's triumph." In New Hampshire and Connecticut, where women did actively oppose Senators Moses and Brandegee, their majorities were also so reduced as to seriously alarm their election committees for a time. In New York, Senator Wadsworth ran at least 700,000 behind Harding, and there was plenty of evidence that had it not been for the unusual features of the campaign which threw practically all the Irish and German vote to Harding, Senator Wadsworth would not have pulled through. The Democrats seemed to have little hope of winning but did expect to save Governor Smith, whose Governorship had been popular. The Republicans were alarmed over Wadsworth and felt the need of exceptional tactics. Somewhere, somehow, a deal was made and Democrats voted for Wadsworth in exchange for Republican votes for Smith. The figures themselves demonstrate that this was done, but additional evidence is plentiful in the form of conversations overhead by workers at the polls. Senator Wadsworth owes his re-election to the fact that it was a Presidential year, with overwhelming trend toward the Republicans plus a scheme for trading votes. Whether the hard race to which he was forced will make him a more representative Senator remains for future demonstrations. Mr. Harding's promise of a Secretary of Social Welfare to cover several of the present bureaus, including education, child welfare, health, &c., had raised the query as to whether a woman may be appointed to the new post with a seat in the Cabinet. This rumor has been widely circulated through the press. It will be a notable step in advance and all women will regard the appointment of any women to this new position as an honor to their sex. Several ardent Republican women workers would fill such a post admirably. The election is over; woman suffrage is here forever, and on the whole, women have good and sufficient reason to be fairly well satisfied with this their first participation in a great national contest. Transcribed and reviewed by volunteers participating in the By The People project at crowd.loc.gov.