154

such restrictions upon this function as are contained in the constitution itself. One legislature may not impose restrictions upon the exercise of this power by a succeeding legislature, by means of a law enacted with the approval of the governor. For example, in Arkansas there is a legislative act providing that proposed amendments shall be subject to the governor's veto; this requirement is one which is not laid down in the constitution, and may be ignored by any succeeding legislature, without being formally repealed."

63

With reference to restrictions in the constitution itself, it may be said that the legislature as a body for the proposal of amendments is bound only by the rules specifically laid down in the article of the constitution which regulates the amending process-that is, it is not bound by the requirements that its action as a regular legislative body be submitted to the governor nor by the numerous restrictions usually imposed as to the procedure on regular legislative bills. This point came out squarely in the Minnesota case of Julius v. Callahan.** Here it was contended that a constitutional amendment was invalid because the subject was not expressed in the title of the act of proposal, this being a constitutional requirement with reference to ordinary legislative acts, but the court said that the restrictions

63 Kirby's Digest, 1904, pp. 324, 325. This provision is apt to cause no practical difficulty because the majority required in Arkansas to overcome an executive veto is the same as that required to propose an amendment, but the same principle applies here equally as in cases where restrictions of a more burdensome character might be imposed. But in North Carolina provision is specifically made that submission of proposed amendments shall be in "such manner as is prescribed by law," and in Kentucky publication is to be had in a manner prescribed by law, so that in these cases rules laid down by the legislature would be binding until repealed.

64 63 Minn., 154 (1895).

imposed upon the legislature acting in its ordinary capacity did not apply to the proposal of amendments; that a formal act or statute was not necessary for such a proposal, but that a joint resolution of the two houses was sufficient. Whether the formal act of proposal be called a joint resolution or act (or by any other name) makes no difference— the ordinary constitutional rules controling legislative action do not apply to them unless such rules are expressly repeated in the amending clause of the constitution.65

Although the legislative proposal of amendments is an act different in character from ordinary legislation (and subject in many ways to different rules) still it is essentially a legislative act. In this connection a curious question. arose in 1900 under the California constitutional provision that a special session of the legislature should have "no power to legislate on any subjects other than those specified in the proclamation" of the governor convening the special session. At a special session of the California legislature in 1900 a constitutional amendment was proposed, although this was a subject not included in the governor's proclama

65 Nesbit v. People, 19 Colo., 441. Commonwealth v. Griest, 196 Pa. St., 396. State v. Dahl, 6 N. D., 81. In re Senate File No. 31, 25 Neb., 864. Edwards v. Lesueur, 132 Mo., 441. People v. Sours, 31 Colo., 379. Warfield v. Vandiver, 101 Md., 78 (1909). State ex rel. Morris v. Mason, 43 La. Ann., 590, 649-658. McBee v. Brady, 100 Pac., 97 (Idaho, 1909). In several cases the question has been raised as to the form in which amendments should be proposed but judicial expressions upon this subject have usually been dicta. The usual method, and that favored by the courts when they have expressed themselves is that by joint resolution. The Idaho court in McBee v. Brady suggested that the legislative proposal should indicate the particular matter to be inserted or omitted as an amendment and the particular place the amendment is to be made," but this was merely a suggestion; so also in this case the court suggested that matter not relating directly to the proposal or submission of the amendment should not be included in the resolution. Upon this subject see also Lovett v. Ferguson, 10 S. D., 44.

tion. The secretary of state ignored the legislative proposal, and an action was brought to compel him to submit the proposed amendment to the people. The court said that the power to propose amendments is legislative in character, and that the proposal was therefore void, because not within the power of the special session."

As already suggested, a number of states require the action of two successive legislatures for the proposal of an amendment. Under such a requirement it is necessary of course that each proposed amendment be approved in the same form by the two legislatures." But where the first legislature makes several distinct proposals, each such proposal must stand alone, and any one of them may be approved or rejected by the succeeding legislature, even though the first legislature may have included all of its proposals in one resolution. In Trustees of University of North Carolina v. McIver 69 the first assembly proposed seventeen amendments in one bill, and the second assembly adopted only eight of the seventeen, framing them in eight

66 People v. Curry, 130 Cal., 82 (1900).

68

67 Koehler v. Hill, 60 Iowa, 543, 549, is based in part on the ground that the proposed amendment as entered in the senate journal of the first legislature did not agree with the entries in the journals of the two houses of the second legislature; these entries might have been said, therefore, to show that the action of the two legislatures was not the same. But the evidence in this case did show that both legislatures acted upon the same proposal; the only defect was that one journal entry was not properly made.

68" Where a constitution authorizes specific amendments thereof by the action of two successive general assemblies, and several amendments are proposed by one general assembly, and one or more of them are rejected by the next general assembly, those which have received the approval of both are valid as parts of the constitution, the proceedings being otherwise regular." Jameson, Constitutional Conventions, 4th ed., p. 618.

6972 N. C., 76 (1875).

separate bills. It was contended that the seventeen proposals must hang together, and that the second legislature must approve all or none, but the court held that each proposed amendment was independent, even when combined with others in a single bill, and that the action of the second assembly was a proper one. A similar position was taken by the supreme court of Rhode Island in an opinion rendered at the request of the senate of that state in 1909.7° Here the first legislature had proposed an amendment which really comprised three distinct subjects, and the court was of the opinion that these subjects might be separated and submitted separately by the second legislature. It said that the numbering and arrangement of sections were not of the substance of the amendment and might be changed, but that the proposals themselves "should still appear in the same form of words as they were in the original resolution." 71 The adoption of any other principle than that laid down in Trustees v. McIver would reduce materially the power of the second legislature. The constitutions which require two legislative actions evidently intended that the second legislature should be free to adopt or reject each specific proposal of the first, and did not contemplate that 70 In re Opinion of Supreme Court, 71 Atl., 798.

71 The language of the Rhode Island constitution provides that amendments shall “be published and submitted to the electors in the mode provided in the act of approval" by the second legislature, and justified the separation of one amendment into several proposals as was done here; in other states it would seem that a single proposed amendment might not be split up into several proposals by the second legislature, but that it would have to be acted upon as a whole both by such legislature and by the people. Reference is made by the Rhode Island court to legislative actions in that state in 1854 precisely parallel with those in Trustees v. McIver: the first assembly proposed nine distinct articles of amendment in a single resolution; the succeeding assembly approved only five of the nine and submitted them separately to the people.

the first legislature should attempt to bind the second to the adoption or rejection of a whole group of proposed amendments.

To this point the discussion of the actual steps in the amending process has related to legislative action purely. It will now be well to consider some questions which relate to the submission of proposed amendments, and of these the most important are those relating: (1) To the publication of legislative proposals. (2) To the form of submission, especially with reference to the separate submission of each legislative proposal. (3) To the elections, whether general or special, at which such proposals must be submitted; and (4) to the popular vote required for the adoption of proposed amendments.

Publication of Proposed Amendments

In all of the states except Indiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, and South Carolina the constitutions contain some provisions regarding the publication of proposed amendments. Mississippi requires that public notice. be given for three months, Michigan requires that proposed amendments be published and posted, Connecticut and Minnesota provide simply for publication with the laws; while California, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Virginia simply provide for publication without specifying how proposed amendments shall be published. Of the fourteen states which require two legis

73

72 In Nevada, where publication for three months is required, publication in the state laws was held sufficient in State v. Grey, 21 Nev., 378.

73 But Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Virginia do specify as to the time within which publication shall be made.