IX. RECALL OF OFFICERS.

The recall of public officers was adopted by Oregon in 1908, but first became an issue of distinct popular interest when it was placed in the proposed Arizona constitution. Congress required that the provision for the recall of officers in the Arizona constitution be amended by the exclusion of judges before that state should be admitted into the Union and such an amendment was made. Immediately after admission, however, the provision with respect to the recall of judges was again placed in the constitution of Arizona.

The table given below indicates the development of the recall and the extent to which it has been applied to judicial offices. Application to judicial offices has been the primary point of contention in connection with the development of the recall. The recall was rejected in Wisconsin and Minnesota in 1914. In Arkansas a recall amendment was adopted by popular vote in 1912, but was declared invalid by the supreme court of that state on the ground that the number of constitutional amendments submitted exceeded that perImitted by the constitution.

In an appendix to this pamphlet is printed the text of the California constitutional provision with respect to the recall. These provisions illustrate perhaps sufficiently the constitutional provisions with respect to the recall, although the California provision is somewhat more carefully safeguarded than are the provisions of Oregon, Arizona and some other states.

The recall of public officers has been used in a number of cases with respect to local officers. A review of the cases in which it has been employed in the state of Oregon will be found in Barnett's Initiative, Referendum and Recall in Oregon.

The recall has been introduced by statute in a number of states, particularly in connection with the commission form of city government. A detailed analysis of the cases in which the recall has been introduced and in which it has been used will be found in the October, 1916, number of Equity.

Equity is a quarterly magazine (recently discontinued), devoted primarily to the initiative, referendum and recall. On the basis of a careful survey of the working of the recall this journal in 1916 made the following comment:

"In these reports to Equity there are more often complaints about the operation of the recall than about the initiative and referendum. Almost invariably the complaints refer to the efforts of a defeated political group to make trouble for a successful candidate where the rule requires the incumbent's name on the ballot with rival candidates, instead of having the recall proposition placed on the ballot by itself, to be voted on "yes" or "no". In the latter plan the names of the candidates appear on the ballot of the Recall proposition and, of course, the incumbent's name does not appear among them, as his name is involved only in the recall proposition. The result of the voting on candidates is considered only in the event that a majority is found to be for the recall of the incumbent, thus creating a vacancy in the office. The object of thus having the recall proposition on the same ballot with candidates is to obviate the expense and delay of holding a separate election.

"The action of a defeated minority is not invariably due to petty or corrupt motives. Without doubt there is justification in most instances for such persistent activity of a minority, especially if it believes itself to have been defeated by corrupt means. However, it is highly prejudicial to the proper function and purpose of the recall to have available any such plan as will enable a defeated group to force a new election on the basis of rival candidates without an opportunity to vote on the merits of the incumbent's administration.

"In thirteen states the municipal recall plan of operation is to have the name of the incumbent official, whose recall is sought, placed on the recall ballot along with the other candidates nominated, and the one receiving the highest vote to be declared elected. This plan is not in any true sense a recall election, for the question of recalling the incumbent official is not directly voted on at all. This is in effect a new election forced upon the community under the guise and subterfuge of a recall election. We cannot too emphatically condemn

this misnamed recall process, which has gained acceptance in a majority of the states authorizing the recall. We believe that in most cases this plan has been adopted unwittingly by men who did not duly consider what they were doing, but who merely copied the process which had found lodgment in the law of some other state or city.

"This situation is not possible in a city whose charter provides for the submission of a recall proposition separate and distinct from the process for obtaining a successor to the incumbent official in case he is recalled. This plan is required in the laws of four states (Colorado, Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio), and is common to special home rule charters in California and several other states. In some cities the successor, in case the recall carries, is appointed by the governor of the state. But generally a special election is held to elect a successor. In several states the plan is to have the candidates (but not the incumbent official) on the same ballot with the recall proposition, the one getting the highest vote, to be the successor only in the event that a majority favors the recall.

"A large number of charters and some state laws make a newlyelected official immune from the recall for a definite period, in some cases six months and in a few instances as long as a year. It may be mentioned here that in many charters a penalty is imposed upon any recalled official by barring him from any public office for one or two years.

"To Oregon, which created the first successful system of the state-wide initiative, referendum and recall, belongs the responsibility for having first introduced this perverted recall election process, in which the name of the incumbent official appears on the ballot as a candidate for re-election. Hence this plan is often spoken of as the 'Oregon plan'. The correct and efficient plan of having the recall proposition submitted separately first gained its prominence in certain municipalities of California. Hence it is known as the 'California plan'".

APPENDIX No. 1.

Beard, C. A., and Schultz, B. E., Documents on the state-wide initiative, referendum and recall. Macmillan, New York, 1912. Contains substantially all important documents bearing upon the initiative and referendum to the year 1911. The introductory note is important..

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Special issue of September, 1912, devoted to the initiative, referendum and recall. Some of the articles are of distinct value. Lowell, A. L., Public Opinion and Popular Government., Longmans, New York, 1914. A large part of this work is devoted to the initiative and referendum. Appendices contain tables of votes on measures in Switzerland and in the United States.

Munro, W. B., Editor, The Initiative, Referendum and Recall, Appleton, New York, 1912. A collection of articles from different points of view.

Oberholtzer, E. P., the initiative, referendum and recall in America, Scribners, New York, 1911. An important work with supplementary chapters covering the period from 1900 to 1910. The supplementary chapters are much more hostile to the initiative and referendum than the original work.

Massachusetts constitutional convention, 1917, Bulletin No. 6, the initiative and referendum, Boston, 1917.

Gardner, C. O., working of the state-wide referendum in Illinois, American Political Science Review, Vol. 5, page 394 (August, 1911).

Massachusetts constitutional convention, 1917-18, debates, Vol. II, Initiative and Referendum.

Upon the initiative and referendum in Oregon a number of specific studies have been made. The most valuable of these are the following:

Barnett, J. D., the operation of the initiative, referendum and recall

in Oregon, Macmillan, New York, 1915. The only careful study of the operation of the initiative and referendum and recall in a single state.

Montague, R. W., the Oregon system at work. The National Municipal Review, April, 1914.

Holman, F. V., the unfavorable results of direct legislation in Oregon, Chapter 11 of the "Initiative, Referendum and Recall," edited by W. B. Munro.

APPENDIX No. 2. TEXTS OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM PROVISIONS.

1. Utah Constitutional Amendment (1900).

Article VI, Section 1. Power vested in Senate, House and People. The legislative power of the State shall be vested:

(1) In a Senate and House of Representatives, which shall be designated the Legislature of the State of Utah.

(2) In the people of the State of Utah as hereinafter stated: The legal voters or such fractional part thereof of the State of Utah, as may be provided by law, under such conditions and in such manner and within such time as may be provided by law, may initiate any desired legislation and cause the same to be submitted to a vote of the people for approval or rejection, or may require any law passed by the Legislature (except those laws passed by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each house of the Legislaure) to be submitted to the voters of the State before such law shall take effect.

The legal voters, or such fractional part thereof, as may be provided by law, of any legal subdivision of the State, under such conditions and in such manner and within such time as may be provided by law, may initiate any desired legislation and cause the same to be submitted to a vote of the people of said legal subdivision for approval or rejection, or may require any law or ordinance passed by the lawmaking body of said legal subdivision to be submitted to the voters. thereof before such law or ordinance shall take effect.

2. Oregon Constitutional Amendments ((1902, 1906). Article IV, Section 1. Legislative Authority-Style of Bill— Initiative and Referendum. The legislative authority of the state shall be vested in a legislative assembly, consisting of a senate and house of representatives, but the people reserve to themselves power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislative assembly, and also reserve power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act of the legislative assembly. The first power reserved by the people is the initiative, and not more than eight per cent of the legal voters shall be required to propose any measure by such petition, and every such petition shall include the full text of the measure so proposed. Initiative petitions shall be filed with the secretary of state not less than four months before the election at which they are to be voted upon. The second power is the referendum, and it may be