The

Carolina between 1899 and 1908, four of the nine proposed amendments submitted to the people related to the extension of the debt limit of particular towns and cities; the people of the state at large could hardly be expected to have an opinion worth expressing as to whether the cities of Greenville and Bennettsville, and the town of Gaffney, should be permitted to borrow more money than they were permitted to borrow by existing constitutional limitations. voters of Missouri can hardly have had satisfactory basis for the decision that cities having more than one hundred thousand inhabitants should not be permitted to incur additional indebtedness for the construction of subways. In North Dakota the voters of the state have been called upon to pass on such important questions as that of establishing an institution for the feeble-minded, and of changing the name of the state school for the deaf and dumb. these cases are extreme ones, but a study of amendments proposed during the past ten years will show that they do not give a greatly exaggerated view of the present situation.

Some of

When the proposals are not only local or trivial in character but are also submitted in great numbers the difficulties of a voter are very much increased, if he should wish to express an intelligent judgment upon such questions. In 1906 the voters of California were asked to pass upon fourteen constitutional questions, and in 1908 upon fifteen questions. In Louisiana twelve proposals were submitted in 1906 and fifteen in 1908. In 1908 the voters of Missouri passed upon eight proposed amendments, and ten such proposals were submitted to the people of Oregon. The

6

But five were submitted at one election and ten at another. In 1896 twenty proposals were submitted in Louisiana and twelve in Nebraska.

7 The voters of Oregon, in addition, passed upon nine laws, which were submitted at the same time.

submission of questions in this manner would not impress itself as so important a fact were such action had infrequently. Were the people called upon to pass on constitutional questions only at long intervals greater popular interest would be aroused, but when numerous measures are submitted at each biennial election the great body of voters must necessarily come to take less interest in them. The popular voting upon constitutional questions ceases to have the merit of novelty. Important questions are often submitted but the public interest is dissipated, and the questions of importance are lost in the mass of trivial proposals.

For the making of numerous proposals the state legislatures cannot be held entirely responsible. It is true, as Dr. Oberholtzer suggests, that legislatures sometimes submit as proposed amendments questions upon which they might themselves finally pass, and thus seek to evade responsibility for measures of a purely legislative character; but this influence may be easily exaggerated. The principal reason for the frequent submission of such proposals is that our state constitutions are so detailed in their restrictions upon legislative action that a change in these details is often necessary to adjust governmental powers to new conditions. As Mr. Moffett has said with respect to California, the powers of the regular legislative organs have come to be so bound up by restrictions that the process of amendment is often the only means of enacting much legislation which is desired. "An end that would be reached in another state by an act of the legislature would be attained in California. by tinkering the constitution." Once the plan was inau

8 Oberholtzer, Referendum in America, 158-163.

* Samuel E. Moffett in Political Science Quarterly, xiii, 4. The constitutional referendum has come to be a referendum upon measures properly of a legislative character, and to a large extent upon unimportant details of legislation. Many of the laws submitted under the

gurated of proposing amendments frequently, it came to be realized in many states how easily constitutional changes can be made, and the practice has grown more and more common.10 Amendments are easily proposed in the legislature, and their submission at regular general elections involves little additional expense.

But in the proposal of amendments legislatures do not labor under a heavy burden of responsibility. The questions are left for the people to decide, and legislators do not feel that their influence or standing are involved in the character of measures proposed. Mr. Bryce and others 11 have spoken of the superior character, both in form and substance, of constitutional legislation as compared with ordinary statutes, and there is still some basis for this statement as regards constitutions drafted by conventions; but neither in form nor substance can amendments proposed by legislatures be said to be superior to ordinary statutes. In many cases legislative action upon such proposals seems to be undertaken with less feeling of responsibility than is shown in the enactment of ordinary legislation. This is apt to be the case. In proposing amendments legislatures do not have upon them the responsibility for final action, and if a proposed amendment is adopted and works badly the blame can easily be shifted to the people who approved referendum in Oregon are more important measures than those submitted as constitutional amendments in other states.

10"If the practice of recasting or amending state constitutions were to grow common, one of the advantages of direct legislation by the people would disappear, for the sense of permanence would be gone, and the same mutability which is now possible in ordinary statutes would become possible in the provisions of the fundamental law." Bryce, American Commonwealth, 3d ed., i, 473.

11 American Commonwealth, 3d ed., i, 475-76. Oberholtzer, chap. iii. Dealey, Our State Constitutions, 9, 13, 14. Godkin, Unforeseen Tendencies of Democracy, 141-144.

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.1

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 amendBut 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.

ments.

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