188

an additional three per cent, but for a ten per cent direct initiative upon constitutional amendments. Massachusetts provides for a much more complex method of initiating constitutional amendments than for the initiation of statutes. Under the Massachusetts constitution, 25,000 voters may present an initiative petition for a constitutional amendment. The proposed amendment then goes before a joint session of the general court and three-fourths of the members voting in joint session may amend the proposal. If in such joint session an initiative amendment receives the affirmative vote of not less than one-fourth of all the members elected it is referred to the next general court. In the next general court if an initiative amendment or if a legislative substitute for such amendment receives the affirmative votes of at least one-fourth of all the members elected, the proposed amendment is submitted to the people at the next state election and is adopted if it is approved by a majority of those voting on the amendment, such majority equaling thirty per cent of the total number of ballots cast at the election.

Attention should be called particularly to the fact that Arkansas, Nebraska and Mississippi make the popular adoption of an amendment proposed by initiative petition easier than the popular adoption of an amendment proposed by legislative action. In Arkansas and Mississippi an amendment proposed by the legislature requires a majority of all votes cast at the election; an amendment proposed by popular petition requires merely a majority of the votes cast upon the question. In Nebraska an amendment proposed by legislative action requires a majority of all votes cast at the election; an amendment proposed by popular petition, an affirmative vote equal to thirtyfive per cent of the total vote cast at the election.

The use of the popular initiative for constitutional amendinents upon certain subjects is prohibited by a number of detailed provisions in Massachusetts. Nebraska and Massachusetts prohibit the proposal of the same measure oftener than once in three years, and Oklahoma provides that a measure rejected under the initiative and referendum shall not be again submitted in less than three years by less than a twenty-five per cent petition.

Popular vote required for the adoption of amendments: The constitution of Illinois requires that a proposed amendment in order to be adopted shall receive the votes of a majority of the electors voting at a general election.

At least nine other states have requirements which either expressly or by interpretation require that a measure receive a majority of all votes cast at the election in which submitted, although in Alabama and Oklahoma amendments may be submitted at a special election,

Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wyoming. Attention should be called to the fact that in Arkansas and Mississippi a majority of those voting upon the question is sufficient to adopt an amendment proposed by a popular petition, and in Nebraska a thirty-five per cent affirmative vote is sufficient to adopt a proposal presented by a popular petition.

where of course the majority of those voting upon the question is substantially equivalent to a majority of those voting at the election. Constitutional amendments, however, must ordinarily be submitted at general elections, even where this is not expressly required, because of the almost prohibitive expense of a special election.

Rhode Island requires that proposed amendments shall be approved by three-fifths of the electors of the state present and voting thereon, and New Hampshire requires the approval of two-thirds of the qualified voters present and voting upon a proposal.

The Michigan constitution of 1908 authorized a limited use of the initiative for the proposal of constitutional amendments, and required that such a proposed amendment in order to be adopted should receive a majority of the votes cast upon its adoption or rejection, and the affirmative vote should not be less than one-third of the highest number of votes cast at the same election for any office. Nebraska provides with respect to initiated amendments that they shall be adopted by a majority of the votes cast thereon provided that the favorable vote shall constitute thirty-five per cent of the vote cast at the election. The first proposed amending clause of the New Mexico constitution required that proposed amendments be submitted at a general election and receive an affirmative vote equal to at least forty per cent of all votes cast in the state and in at least half of the counties. In the New York convention of 1894 it was proposed that an amendment should be adopted by either of the following methods: (1) by a majority of all the electors voting at a general election, or by the affirmative vote of a majority of the electors voting thereon, provided that two-thirds of all the electors voting at an election voted thereon, or (2) if submitted at a special election provided that the affirmative vote equal a majority of all the electors voting at the last preceding general election; or by a vote of those voting thereon provided the vote at the special election equal two-thirds of the vote at the last preceding general election.

190

IV. REVISION OF CONSTITUTION THROUGH

CONVENTION.

In view of the fact that a number of states have no provisions regarding the assembling of constitutional conventions, but actually employ such a convention, and in further view of details existing in various states with respect to the convention, it is difficult to summarize briefly the different types of constitutional provisions with respect to this matter. A statement is given below which seeks to summarize in several groups the provisions with respect to this matter in the several states, but attention should be called to the fact that this statement does not attempt any precise logical arrangement of these states:

(1) State with provision for change only by means of a constitutional convention. New Hampshire. This state requires a popular vote to assemble a convention, and popular approval of the convention's work.

(2) States having no provisions for constitutional conventions: Arkansas, Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont. In a number of these states conventions have actually been assembled in the absence of constitutional provisions for such conventions, and the generally accepted views is that the legislature may provide for the calling of a convention, even though the constitution contains no provision with reference thereto. A Rhode Island opinion constitutes an exception to this statement. In Indiana a recent judicial decision takes the view that in the absence of constitutional provision the legislature may call a constitutional convention, but that the proposal for such a convention must first be submitted to popular vote.1

(3) Provision merely authorizing legislature to call convention, without any limitations as to popular vote either for the calling of the convention or upon the work of the convention: Maine, Georgia.

(4) States which require the submission to the voters of the question of calling a constitutional convention. There are thirty-four states which now require such a submission: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

1 Bennett v. Jackson, 186 Ind. 533 (1917).

(5) States authorizing conventions and requiring a popular vote to assemble a convention but not expressly requiring the submission of the work of the convention to popular vote: Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Kansas, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin. Generally, however, constitutions have been submitted both in the states having no constitutional provisions regarding conventions and in the states having no requirements for submission to popular vote.

(6) States expressly requiring a popular vote to assemble a convention and also expressly requiring submission of the work of the convention to a popular vote. Of these there are nineteen: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming.

(7) Those requiring a periodical submission of the question of holding a constitutional convention: New Hampshire (seven years), Iowa (ten years), Michigan (sixteen years), Maryland, New York, Ohio (twenty years). The constitutions of Iowa, New York, Michigan and Ohio also contain provisions permitting submission of the question at other times than the ten, sixteen and twenty year periods. The Oklahoma constitution leaves to legislative discretion as to when the question shall be submitted, but requires that it be submitted once in every twenty years.

(8) Constitutions whose provisions regarding a constitutional convention are made completely independent of any legislative action: New York, Michigan.

The popular vote required to authorize a convention varies. Seventeen states either expressly or impliedly require that the necessary vote shall be a majority of those cast upon the subject of holding a convention: Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin; and Kentucky has a similar provision with the additional requirement that the total number of votes cast for the calling of a convention be equal to one-fourth of the number of votes cast at the preceding general election. Twelve states require that the proposal of a convention shall be approved by a majority of those voting at a general election: Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming. Alabama and Tennessee require a majority of the votes cast in the election in which a proposal is submitted, but permit such submission to be made at either a general or special election. Michigan requires a majority vote of electors qualified to vote for members of the legisiature. The vote upon the question of holding a constitutional convention may also be taken at special elections in Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Virginia and West Virginia.

Upon the question of adopting or rejecting the work of a constitutional convention, Arizona, Michigan, Maryland, Nebraska, New

York, Ohio and Oklahoma require merely a majority of those voting upon the question of adoption or rejection. California, Colorado, Illinois, Missouri, Montana, and Utah require a majority of all persons voting at an election, but California expressly requires that such submission be at a special election, and Illinois and some other states permit submission either at a general or a special election.

Constitutions vary greatly in the extent to which they prescribe details regarding the composition and election of delegates to constitutional conventions. The constitution of Missouri makes the assembling of a convention independent of legislative action after the people have voted (upon legislative authorization) that a convention shall be held. The New York constitution of 1894 and the Michigan constitution of 1908 make a convention completely independent of legislative action, provided one is assembled as a result of the periodical votes required to be had upon the subject in these states. This independence of the convention was provided for first in New York because of the fact that a popular vote in favor of a constitutional convention was had in New York in 1886, but because of political differences, legislative provision for such convention was not made promptly and the convention did not actually assemble until 1894.

In some states which have adopted the popular initiative, the initiative provisions are sufficiently broad to permit of being used for the purpose of initiating a proposal for the holding of a constitutional convention. A power by initiative petition to force a vote upon the holding of a constitutional convention is not expressly found in any constitutional provision and results from implication, so that it is difficult to say in what states the popular initiative may be so used. However, the constitutional provisions for the popular initiative in Arizona, Michigan, Maine, Oregon, Missouri and Oklahoma seem to include a power to initiate a proposal for the holding of a constitutional convention.