subject of the amendment, and if they are so connected with or dependent upon the general subject that it might not be desirable that one be adopted and not the other." 108 The view expressed by the Colorado court is a sound one, but there is room for difference of opinion as to whether the amendment under consideration did not violate the rule.

A stricter view of this matter has been taken by the supreme court of Mississippi. A proposed amendment submitted to the people of that state in 1899 provided for the popular election of judges, and also contained rules regarding the nomination and election of judicial officers. The supreme court declared that this measure was really four amendments in that it provided (1) for the popular election of judges of the supreme court, (2) for a similar method of choosing circuit judges, and (3) chancellors; and (4) for methods of nominating and electing these officers. The court said: "Whether amendments are one or many must be solved by their inherent nature, by the consideration whether they are separate and independent each of the other so as that each can stand alone without the other, leaving the constitutional system symmetrical, harmonious, and independent on the subject." 109 The test applied by the Mississippi court is too narrow; in many cases matters which might stand alone may, it would seem, properly be embodied in the same amendment if they relate to the same subject and are designed to accomplish the same purpose; in the case under discussion the question of

108 People v. Sours, 31 Colo., 369 (1903). Upon this subject see also State ex rel. Morris v. Mason, 43 La. Ann., 590 (1891); State ex rel. Adams v. Herried, 10 S. D., 109 (1897); Gabbert v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Co., 171 Mo., 84 (1902); Hubbard v. Railroad Co., 173 Mo., 249 (1903); State v. Board of Commissioners, 34 Mont., 426 (1906).

109 State v. Powell, 77 Miss., 543 (1900).

electing judges by popular vote is one of this character, although, as the court says, it might be possible to provide separately for the method of choosing each grade of judges; if the method of electing all judges be taken as one proper to be included in one amendment, certainly rules for the nomination and election of such judges are merely incidental to the main purpose of the proposal. The Mississippi decision can hardly be considered a sound one and is perhaps not entitled to very great weight in this connection, inasmuch as the amendment in question was also held to be invalid for other reasons.

Yet this decision has recently been followed by the supreme court of Idaho, which lays down a rule almost as strict as that of the Mississippi court. In the case of McBee v. Brady 110 the Idaho court said: "The determination whether a proposed change in the constitution constitutes one or more amendments, it seems to us, depends upon whether the change as proposed relates to one subject and accomplishes a single purpose, and the true test should be, can the change or changes proposed be divided into subjects

110 100 Pac. 97 (Idaho, 1909). Attention should also be called to Lozier v. Alexander Drug Co., 99 Pac., 808 (affirmed, Armstrong v. Berkey, 99 Pac., 921). Here was drawn in question an effort of the Oklahoma legislature to submit to the people part of a law, and to have it become effective as a constitutional amendment if it should receive a sufficient popular vote; the part of the law submitted was to become a provision of the constitution if approved by a majority of the persons voting at the election, but was to be altogether repealed if it did not receive a majority of the votes cast upon the question of its adoption or rejection. An affirmative vote counted in favor of the proposal as an amendment, but no option was given to those who favored the measure as a law but were opposed to its incorporation into the constitution; a negative vote on the other hand counted not only against the measure as an amendment but for its repeal as a law. The court held that such submission was improper because the voter had no opportunity to vote independently for or against the law, or for or against the proposed amendment.

distinct and independent, and can any one of which be adopted without in any way being controlled, modified or qualified by the other? If not, then there are as many amendments as there are distinct and independent subjects, and it matters not whether the proposed change affects one or many sections or articles of the constitution."

With reference to the time of submitting proposed amendments and to the form of submission little need be said. Twenty-two states require submission at general elections; 11 two provide for submission at general elections, but expressly permit special elections to be ordered.112 The language of the Connecticut constitution seems to require submission to town meetings especially called for that purpose, and a similar provision is contained in the revised amending clause of Maine. New Jersey specifically requires that proposed amendments be submitted "at a special election to be held for that purpose only." The other state constitutions either make no provision whatever regarding the elections at which proposed amendments shall be submitted, or expressly leave the matter within the discretion of the legislature. 113

113

111 Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming. As to what is a general election see Westinghausen v. People, 44 Mich., 265; Chase v. Board of Election Commissioners, 151 Mich., 407; Tecumseh National Bank v. Saunders, 51 Neb., 801; Commonwealth v. Griest, 196 Pa. St., 396, 415-418; In re Denny, 156 Ind., 104, 110. See also State v. Board of Examiners, 21 Nev., 67.

112 Oklahoma, Oregon.

113 Where such discretion is given it is customary for proposed amendments to be submitted at general elections. Such a requirement as that in New Jersey is unwise, because a large vote upon proposed measures usually cannot be obtained at special elections. New Jersey held special elections on proposed amendments in 1897, 1903, and 1909.

The Michigan constitution expressly provides that proposed amendments shall be submitted on "a ballot or ballots separate from the ballot containing the names of nominees for public office." A similar provision is made by statute in several other states.114 The Michigan constitution also requires that the text of proposed amendments be printed in full on the ballot. Alabama requires that "the substance or subject matter of each proposed amendment shall be so printed that the nature thereof shall be clearly indicated." In practically all of the other states the constitutional provisions are of such a character as to make it necessary that the full text or a clear indication of the character of the proposal appear upon the ballot.115

These elections were held in September, and general state elections in the succeeding November. In the special election of 1897 the vote was more than half as large as that at the general election; in 1903 only a little more than twelve per cent of that at the general election; and in 1909 less than twenty per cent of that at the general election. Governor Fort of New Jersey in his message of 1908 recommended the adoption of an amendment providing that a vote might be had at general elections.

114 Idaho Laws, 1905, p. 315. Maine Laws, 1905, ch. 135. Missouri Laws, 1909, p. 492. New York Consolidated Laws, 1909, ii, 978. South Dakota Laws, 1899, p. 88. Wyoming Laws, 1909, p. 27. Writing with reference to the operation of the Idaho law Hon. Burton L. French of Idaho says: "You will notice that at each of the three first elections [1900, 1902, 1904] few persons comparatively speaking voted at all on the amendments. A better showing is made at each of the last two elections [1906, 1908]. The reason is because in the last two elections constitutional amendments were submitted on separate slips [or ballots] which were handed to each voter at the time the ticket was handed to him, and as a result he was compelled at least to notice them. Under the former system, the constitutional amendment was submitted by being printed at the bottom of the ticket. It was easily overlooked."

115 As to what is a sufficient indication of the character of a proposed amendment see Murphy Chair Company v. Attorney-General, 148 Mich., 563; State v. Winnett, 78 Neb., 379, 394; Russell v. Croy,

116

Popular Vote Required for the Adoption of Amendments Most of the states provide that a proposed amendment in order to be adopted shall receive simply a majority of the votes cast upon the question of its adoption or rejection,' and the Kentucky constitution makes its meaning perfectly clear in this respect by providing that "if it shall appear that a majority of the votes cast for and against an amendment Iwas for the amendment then the same

shall become a part of the constitution."

In three states 117 proposed amendments in order to be adopted must be ratified by "a majority of the electors" of the state, and in each of them this language has been the subject of judicial construction. In the case of State v. Swift 118 there was involved the validity of a proposed amendment which had been submitted in 1880 and had received an affirmative vote of 169,483 and a negative vote of 152,251; the total vote cast at the election was 380,471, and the total number of persons eligible to vote in 1877 was

164 Mo., 69, 95-97; Worman v. Hagan, 78 Md., 166; Lovett v. Ferguson, 10 S. D., 45, 56; McBee v. Brady, 100 Pac., 97, 104 (Idaho, 1909); People v. Sours, 31 Colo., 369, 388; Lozier v. Alexander Drug Co., 99 Pac., 808 (Okla., 1909). The Oklahoma decision just referred to is very confused, but seems to imply that if the ballot title of a measure submitted to the people did not indicate clearly the character of the measure, the proposal would be invalid, although the full text of the measure had been distributed to every voter and even though it might be shown that the voters were not misled by such title. See also Armstrong v. Berkey, 99 Pac., 921.

116 See Bott v. Secretary of State, 62 N. J. Law, 107; 63 N. J. Law, 300; and Itasca Independent School District v. McElroy, 123 S. W., 117; 124 S. W., 1011 (Texas). See also State v. Barnes, 3 N. D., 319. 117 Idaho, Indiana, Wyoming. The Oregon constitution had until 1906 a provison similar to that in these states, which was construed by the administrative officers to require a majority of all persons voting at the election.

118 69 Ind., 505 (1880).