In the amendment of state constitutions, except in Delaware, there are always two distinct steps, first, the proposal of the amendment, and second, its approval by the people. Many constitutions specify in detail the procedure in each of these steps, and determine the methods of bringing proposed amendments to the attention of the people who are to pass upon them finally. For example the Pennsylvania constitution of 1873 provides: "Any amendment or amendments to this constitution may be proposed in the senate or house of representatives; and, if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each house, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on their journals with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and the secretary of the commonwealth shall cause the same to be published three months before the next general election, in at least two newspapers in every county in which such newspapers shall be published; and if, in the general assembly next afterwards chosen, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each house, the secretary of the commonwealth shall cause the same again to be published in the Proceedings of the American Political Science Association, 1908. It may be worth while to call attention to the fact that amendments are often more frequent in one state than in another, even though the amending process may be equally as easy in the one as in the other. For example, amendments are frequently proposed and adopted in California, Louisiana, and Missouri, but not so frequently in Maine and Maryland; so in New York amendments are frequently adopted, while in Massachusetts, whose amending process is equally as simple, amendments are infrequently made. Somewhat similarly, the Mexican constitution, whose amending process is comparable with that of the United States in cumbersomeness, has been frequently altered, while it seems to be the general view that our federal constitution cannot be amended except in times of national crises. The frequency or infrequency of amendments depends to a great extent, of course, upon popular satisfaction or dissatisfaction with existing institutions, and also upon the conservatism of the population of a state or country.

manner aforesaid; and such proposed amendment or amendments shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the state in such manner, and at such time at least three months after being so agreed to by both houses, as the general assembly shall prescribe; and, if such amendment or amendments shall be approved by a majority of those voting thereon, such amendment or amendments shall become part of the constitution. . . . When two or more amendments shall be submitted they shall be voted upon separately." Here we have seven distinct requirements: (1) Proposal in senate or house. (2) Agreement upon the proposed amendment by a majority of the members elected to each house. (3) Entry of the proposed amendment upon the journals of each house with the yeas and nays thereon. (4) Publication by the secretary of state. (5) A second agreement by the two houses. (6) A second publication by the secretary of state. (7) Submission to and approval by a majority of the voters. The Pennsylvania requirements are more elaborate than those now provided in most of the states. However, some of these steps are required in all of the states, and it may be worth while to discuss in some detail the constitutional provisions now in force regarding the proposal, submission, and adoption of amendments.

As to the legislative majority required for the proposal of amendments, reference has already been made to the provisions of all constitutions now in force. Most of the constitutions require that the legislative proposal be adopted by the vote of a majority, or three-fifths, or two-thirds (or other vote as the case may be) of all members elected to each of the two houses. In these states, therefore, there can be no question as to whether the majority required is a majority of a quorum or a majority of all elected mem

bers; 30 the constitution itself specifies the latter rule. In several of the constitutions, however, the language either does not specify as to whether the majority must be one of all members elected to each house, or is not absolutely clear in the matter.3 31 Vermont provides for the first proposal of amendment by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the senate and a majority of the members of the house, and that the second legislative action be by a "majority of the members of the senate and house of representatives," and this language, it would seem, must be construed to require a majority of all members. Mississippi requires two-thirds of " each house of the legislature," and similar language is used in the constitutions of Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, and North Carolina. The language of the Mississippi constitution has been the subject of judicial construction. In Green v. Weller 32 the court said that a vote of "two-thirds of each house" must be construed to mean only a vote of two-thirds of a quorum of each house; and a similar interpretation was given to the same language by the supreme court of Missouri in the case of State v. McBride.33 The constitution of Massachusetts makes it plain that only the action of a quorum is required for the proposal of amendments by providing that both legislative actions in that state shall be taken by a "majority of the senators and two-thirds of the members of the house of representatives present and voting thereon." Several states require that proposed amendments be read three times on three separate days before passage.34 In a

30 See statement in Holmberg v. Jones, 7 Ida., 752, 757, 758. 31 Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Vermont.

32

32 32 Miss., 650 (1856).

33

4 Mo., 303 (1836).

34 Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia.

recent case in Louisiana objection was made to an amendment on the ground that it had not been read in full on three separate days in each house. The supreme court of Louisiana very sensibly took the view that the constitution of that state did not require a proposed amendment to be read in full on three separate days, and said: "It seems evident, then, that when the constitution prescribes legislative readings it means the ordinary parliamentary reading by title, or in such other manner as the particular house shall direct." 35

Most of the constitutions require the entry of a proposed amendment upon the legislative journals, together with the ayes and nays. By most of the constitutions making this requirement 36 the provision is simply that the amendment shall be entered upon the journals of the two houses, and this language has given rise to some judicial discussion as to what form of entry is necessary. Where the constitution specifies entry in full on the journals of the two houses, as is done in certain cases, there is of course no question; but where full entry is not specifically required the question has often arisen as to whether the entry of the proposed amendment in full upon the journals is necessary, or if a mere identifying entry or journal reference is sufficient.

35 Saunders v. Board of Liquidation, 110 La., 313 (1903).

36 Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. Rhode Island requires that the ayes and nays be published with the proposed amendment, and in Alabama the vote upon a proposed amendment is required to be "taken by yeas and nays and entered on the journals."

37 Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Montana. The language of the Missouri constitution seems to require full entry but is not clear.

There is perhaps no question but that the constitutions which require journal entry intended to require a full entry of the proposed amendment, for legislative journals would ordinarily, as a matter of course, contain an entry of action upon amendments without any such requirement; the provision seems to have been introduced for the very purpose of requiring full entry. But where a legislature has construed the language differently, and has not made a full entry, and the proposed amendment has been adopted by the people, the question properly presents itself to the court that the language is not perfectly clear, and that if possible the view should be taken which would uphold the validity of such an amendment. And this in fact has been

the more usual attitude of the courts.

38

38 Where one constitution required entry in the journals and under it entry by title had been customary, the adoption of a new constitution with the same provision would, it seems, be an approval of the liberal construction, for if the other rule had been desired, the framers of the new constitution could easily have inserted a specific requirement of full entry. Journal entry in full is certainly not now of great practical importance, and this matter is one with reference to which the courts can well afford to be liberal.

Of some interest is the report of a joint committee of the South Carolina legislature upon this subject in 1906. An amendment substituting biennial for annual legislative sessions had been submitted to and adopted by the people in November, 1904. A joint committee was appointed to consider the question of the legislature's ratifying the amendment. The committee recommended that the amendment be not ratified, and said that it had not been properly adopted because not entered on the journals of the two houses; entry had been by title only, and the constitution simply required that proposed amendments should "be entered on the journals." In view of the cases discussed below, it may be questioned whether the supreme court of South Carolina would have taken a view as strict as that of the legislative committee; it should be remembered also that it is entirely within the discretion of the legislature of South Carolina as to whether it shall ratify an amendment adopted by the people and the proposed amendment in this case would probably not have been ratified, even if the journal