it by their votes.12 Then, too, ordinary legislation is subject to the check of executive disapproval, which does not apply to the proposal of amendments. 18

In many cases, therefore, it may be said that proposals of amendment are made without careful legislative consideration, and relate to matters of comparatively slight importance. These considerations are sufficient to explain the fact that proposed amendments ordinarily attract little public attention. Usually there is almost no newspaper discussion of such proposals. The voter hardly knows that there are amendments to be voted upon until he reaches the polls, and after the election is over the result is hardly of sufficient interest to be reported. These statements do not, of course, hold true with reference to the few important measures which are submitted, but apply to the great bulk of proposed amendments. In some states plans have been devised during the past few years to make voters more familiar with such proposals, by distributing to each voter some time before the election, the text of proposed measures; or the text together with arguments or explanations.1 In Oregon this plan has, it seems, provoked a much greater public interest, but it must be remembered that many of the measures submitted in this state during recent years were important ones, which would in any case have attracted public attention. The officially prepared arguments distributed in Oklahoma in 1908 were not of much value as

12 A proposed amendment concerning mortgage taxation was adopted by the people of Missouri in 1900, although it seems not to have been discussed either by the legislature or by the people. In 1902 an amendment was submitted to the people and adopted repealing the amendment of 1900. The amendment of 1900 had, however, already been declared invalid by the court. Russell v. Croy, 164 Mo., 69.

13 As to this matter see statement of Governor Gage, of California. New York State Library Bulletin, Governors' Messages, 1903, p. 28. 14 See pp. 167-176.

a guide to the voters. The plan of placing the text of measures, together with arguments, directly in the hands of each voter may, however, be expected to accomplish something toward arousing greater interest in proposed amendments. But for measures of great importance such methods are not badly needed, and it must be questioned whether any method of informing voters will prove effective with reference to questions which are of too trivial or too local a character to be of any general interest.

Under the conditions just described it is to be expected that the popular vote upon proposed amendments should be small. 15 During the ten-year period from 1899 to 1908 the average vote upon proposed amendments was less than fifty per cent of that upon candidates. 16 Important meas

15 For discussions of the popular vote upon proposed amendments see Oberholtzer, 166-169; J. W. Garner in American Political Science Review, i, 242-247, and in Proceedings of the American Political Science Association, 1907, p. 171. The Direct Legislation Record for March, 1897, contains a rather full account of popular votes on proposed amendments in 1896.

16 The basis of comparison used here is that with the vote for candidates (for state offices where possible) at the same election or at the election immediately preceding the one at which the proposed amendments are submitted. Another comparison which is of some value is that between the total vote on measures and the whole number of qualified voters in the state at the time. In California, for example, the number of persons voting at the election of 1906 was 311,175, while the total number of registered voters was 425,691. In Louisiana in 1902, there were 109,254 registered voters, with but 26,265 votes cast for candidates; in 1904 there were 108,079 registered voters with but 54,222 persons voting; in 1906 there were 107,731 registered voters with but 37,366 persons voting for candidates; and in 1908 there were 154,142 registered voters with 68,932 persons voting for candidates; if fifty per cent of those voting for candidates voted on proposed amendments this would mean that in 1902 less than one-eighth and in 1906 slightly more than one-sixth of the qualified voters voted on proposed amendments, and in 1904 and 1908 about one-fourth of the registered voters expressed themselves upon measures submitted to a

ures usually polled large votes. The new constitutions of Alabama, Oklahoma, and Michigan; the suffrage amendments of North Carolina, Texas, Georgia, and Maryland; the biennial amendment of Iowa; the initiative and referendum amendments of Montana and Oregon, and other questions of similar importance brought out a vote sufficient to show a real popular judgment upon the measures submitted." In some states also large popular votes were polled upon almost all questions submitted during this period. 18 Upon many questions of small importance it is rather remarkable that so many voters should have expressed themselves—in South Carolina, for example, nearly two-thirds of those voting at the election of 1904 expressed

popular vote. In Louisiana, Florida, and Mississippi, and in some of the other southern states the real contest for office is in the democratic primaries, and the vote at general elections is therefore slight. As a rule, in all of the states a larger proportion of the qualified voters vote in presidential election years than at any other time, but this, while affecting the proportion of qualified electors voting upon amendments, does not affect the relation between the number actually voting at the election and the number voting upon measures. Proposals submitted at special elections held for that purpose usually receive a very small vote, as in New Jersey in 1903 and 1909, but a comparatively satisfactory vote was obtained at special elections in New Jersey in 1897 and in Texas in 1907. See Oberholtzer, 165-167.

17 The proposed constitution of Connecticut was very unsatisfactory and brought out a small vote. The Rhode Island proposed constitution received a rather heavy vote in 1898, but comparatively few electors voted when it was submitted again in 1899. Even on important questions the vote is often small, as on the initiative and referendum amendments in Missouri, Nevada, and Utah.

18 Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho (1906, 1908), Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota. For a partial explanation of the vote in Idaho and South Dakota, see p. 279. The large vote obtained in Nebraska in 1906 and 1908, and in Ohio in 1903 and 1905, were obtained by counting straight party votes for the proposed amendments. See p. 194.

themselves upon the question of exempting the city of Greenville from the municipal debt limit. In a number of other cases more than fifty per cent of those taking part in the election voted upon local or trivial questions in which they could have had no personal interest and upon which they could have had no real opinion of value.19 Yet in most cases the popular vote was small and upon many measures ridiculously so.

About the same result is shown by the popular votes in Michigan between 1860 and 1908, and in New York between 1846 and 1907. Upon constitutional referenda in Massachusetts between 1780 and 1907 a somewhat better showing is made, but here also many measures received but a small percentage of the vote cast for governor, and two amendments were adopted in 1860 by 3.3 per cent of those voting for governor in the same year.20 In California between 1884 and 1896 a fairly large popular vote was obtained upon proposals submitted to the people; 21 the popular vote fell in 1898, rose again in 1900, declined much below fifty per cent in 1902, 1904, and 1906, but rose again

21

19 It is a noticeable fact that when important and unimportant measures are submitted at the same election, the large vote brought out upon the one will often have an influence in producing a similar vote upon the other, and this may explain, to some extent at least, the fact referred to above.

20 Reference has already been made to the fact that, where a majority of those voting upon a measure are sufficient to carry it, any measure not strongly opposed will be adopted. Amendments were carried in Colorado and Montana in 1900, in Virginia in 1901, in Washington in 1904, and in Connecticut in 1905, although less than twenty per cent of the voters expressed themselves. Under such conditions the amending process becomes little less than a farce, although the requirement of a larger popular majority to carry measures would make it practically impossible to change many of the detailed provisions in the state constitutions.

21 Except in 1890 when one amendment was submitted and was practically unopposed.

slightly in 1908. This variation in the popular vote seemingly bore no very close relation to the character of the measures submitted. In Oregon in recent years the proportion of electors expressing themselves upon constitutional questions has been large, and this in spite of the fact that a great number of propositions have been submitted to the people.22 This is, it would seem, attributable partly to the fact that many of the questions submitted have been ones of great importance, and partly to the novelty of experiments which Oregon has been making with the initiative and referendum and with methods of bringing the merits of proposals to the attention of the voters. Different results may perhaps be expected when the novelty has worn off, and when less important measures are submitted to the judgment of the people.

Popular interest in candidates will, under ordinary circumstances, be greater than that in measures. Except upon questions of very great importance it cannot be expected that a vote will be obtained equal to or greater than that upon candidates at the same election, but if a measure is important enough to be submitted to the people it should be possible to get a vote sufficient to represent a real popular judgment, but this is not obtained upon proposed amendments under present conditions. 28

Having referred briefly to the proportion of votes upon proposed amendments it may now be worth while to call

22 For the experience of Oregon see papers by W. S. U'Ren and George A. Thacher in Proceedings of the American Political Science Association, 1907, and by Joseph N. Teal in Proceedings of the National Municipal League, 1909.

23 It is not necessary that such a popular judgment be represented by a majority of all persons voting at a general election or by a majority of all the electors of a state, but requirements of this character would be much less burdensome if only measures of a fundamental character were submitted to a popular vote.