tional provisions limiting the terms of legislative sessions, and providing that such sessions should be held biennially (and in Alabama quadrennially) rather than annually as under the earlier constitutions.

Popular share in legislation. During the past twenty years there has been a pronounced tendency to reduce legislative power still further through the introduction of the initiative and referendum.

The introduction of the initiative and referendum involves a greatly increased popular share in the legislation of the states, but this is only one step in a movement toward greater popular participation in government which has been going on since the establishment of independent states. The American Revolution was in its early stages a democratic movement, and in several states led to an extension of the suffrage and to the reduction of property qualifications for the holding of offices, but control of our first state governments was confined in great part to the propertied classes. The following steps may be pointed out as ones tending toward greater popular participation in government: (1) The extension of suffrage and abolition of property qualifications for voting-a movement which gained force after 1800 and which became triumphant during the first three decades of the nineteenth century, although Virginia held out until 1850. (2) The somewhat similar movement for the abolition of property qualifications for office, which covered the same period. (3) The movement which led to the selection of the more important state and local officers by popular vote, as a substitute for their appointment by the legislature or by the executive. This movement has been referred to above in connection with the choice of executive and judicial officers. This development took place in large part during the second quarter of the nineteenth century. (4) The movement for municipal home rule-for the framing of charters by cities or local divisions themselves—a movement which began in Missouri in 1875 and which has spread to a number of other states since that time. This movement involves a diminution of state legislative control over cities. (5) The movement for the popular recall of state and local officers. (6) Woman's suffrage.

VI. STATE CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
SINCE 1900.

The period since 1900 has been an active one in the field of state constitution making. Attention has already been called to the fact that changes in the texts of state constitutions take place in two ways: (1) through the proposal of specific amendments either by the legislatures or by initiative petition and (2) through the calling of constitutional conventions.

Since 1900 new constitutions have been adopted in Alabama (1901), Virginia (1902), Oklahoma (1907), Michigan (1908), Arizona and New Mexico (1911) and Louisiana (1913). All of these constitutions were proposed by constitutional conventions, although attention should be called to the fact that the Louisiana constitution of 1913 is primarily a mere re-editing of the constitution of 1898.1

Proposed constitutions submitted by constitutional conventions were rejected by Connecticut (1902), New York (1915), and Arkansas (1918). Proposed constitutions were drafted by legislative bodies in Indiana (1911) and in Connecticut (1907). The proposed Indiana constitution was never submitted, its submission being enjoined by judicial action; and the proposed Connecticut constitution of 1907 was rejected. Constitutional conventions in Ohio (1912), Massachusetts (1917-19), and New Hampshire (1902, 1912) submitted proposals of amendment rather than complete constitutions. Constitutional conventions will assemble in New Hampshire and Nebraska late in 1919. The Illinois constitutional convention will meet in January, 1920. Constitutional commissions appointed for the purpose of recommending constitutional changes are now at work in Vermont The Massachusetts constitutional convention, and Pennsylvania.

which assembled in 1917, held sessions also in 1918 and 1919.

By the proposal of individual amendments either by legislative bodies or through popular petition, a great deal in the way of constitu

1 For a further discussion of the work of recent constitutional conventions Two New Southern Constitutions. McKinley, A. E. The Oklahoma Constisee the following articles: The Constitution of Political Science Quarterly, XVIII, 480: Sanborn. J. B. The Michigan Contution, American Law Review, XLII. 362: Fairlie. J. A. New Oklahoma, Michigan Law Review, VI, 105; Fairlie, J. A. stitutional Convention, Michigan Law Review, VI, 533; Updyke, F. A. Hampshire Constitutional Convention. American Political Science Review. VII. Attempted Revision of the State Constitu(1913) 133; Benjamin, Gilbert G. tion of New York, American Political Science Review. X. 20 (1916); Thomas. David Y. Constitution Making in Arkansas, American Political Science Review, XIII, 87 (1919).

The question of holding a consti2 Ellingham v. Dye, 178 Ind. 336 (1912). tutional convention was submitted to a popular vote in Indiana in 1914 and rejected. The legislature then provided for a convention to meet without a popular vote as to whether one should be called, and an injunction was issued Bennett v. Jackson, 186 Ind. 533 (1917). to prevent such a convention.

tional change has been proposed and accomplished since 1900. Since 1900, 1504 constitutional amendments have been proposed in the 48 states, of which 904 have been adopted and 600 rejected. Of this number 150 proposed amendments were submitted in California, 134 in Louisiana, 88 in Oregon, 52 in Colorado and Georgia, 57 in New York, 71 in Ohio, 51 in South Dakota and 50 in Michigan. Upon matters relating to taxation alone 257 proposed amendments have been submitted in the several states between 1900 and 1918, of which 142 were adopted.

Certainly not more than one out of four of the proposed amendments in the several states has related to any matter of fundamental importance. The greater number of the amendments have related to matters of no great importance, and probably half of them to matters which would not have been regarded as important even if they had been the subjects of legislative enactments. For example, there were constitutional amendments in North Dakota in 1904 and 1914, changing the names of state charitable institutions, and in the same state in 1904 and 1916 establishing institutions for the feeble-minded and for the insane. In South Carolina a group of communities desires each two years to be relieved from the constitutional debt limits, and there seems to be no difficulty about obtaining a legislative proposal of amendment and a popular approval of an amendment for this purpose. The constitutional debt limit in South Carolina has become by. this means an adjustable one for the communities which desire relief from it through action in each biennial period. The proposal of amendments by the legislative process necessarily tends to become greater in each biennial period, for each set of proposed amendments in any state is adding more of detail to the constitution and this detail must be changed at frequent intervals.

The chief lines of development in state constitutions since 1900 are set forth below:

Popular participation in government. Suffrage qualifications have received a great deal of attention during this period, and the matters dealt with in connection with suffrage fall into several distinct classes: (a) Suffrage restrictions in the south. primarily aimed at Negro suffrage: (b) The withdrawal of the right to vote in a number of states from non-citizens; (c) The extension of woman's suffrage.

With respect to suffrage qualifications aimed primarily at the restriction of negro suffrage in the south, there were changes in the revised constitutions of Alabama and Virginia in 1902 and constitutional amendments in North Carolina (1900). Georgia (1908) and Louisiana (1912). The Louisiana amendment of 1912 merelv sunplemented the provisions with respect to suffrage first introduced into · the Louisiana constitution in 1898. Oklahoma in 1910 adopted restrictions which were declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Guinn v. U. S. 238 U. S. 347.

With respect to voting by non-citizens Colorado (1902) changed its constitution so as to make citizenship a prerequisite, and the same action was taken by Wisconsin in 1908, Oregon in 1914 and Kansas in 1918.

With respect to woman's suffrage, the development during this period has been an active one although in a great many cases proposed amendments have been rejected. In Oregon proposals for woman's suffrage were rejected in 1900, 1906, 1908 and 1910, but an amendment for this purpose was finally adopted in 1912. The states in which constitutional amendments have granted full woman's suffrage since 1900 are Washington (1910), California (1911), Arizona (1911), Kansas and Oregon (1912), Montana and Nevada (1914), New York (1917), Michigan, Oklahoma and South Dakota (1918).

The constitutional development with respect to woman's suffrage tells only a part of the story as to this subject. Broad statutory extensions of woman's suffrage have taken place rapidly since the Illinois legislation upon this subject in 1913, and in Illinois, North Dakota, Tennessee and Nebraska women are by statute permitted to vote for presidential electors and for a number of other officers. In Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island and Mississippi women are allowed now to vote for presidential electors. The statutory development in the matter of woman's suffrage has accomplished during the latter part of the period here under discussion very nearly as much as the constitutional development. State constitutional and statutory activities are likely soon to be supplemented by the ratification of the Federal woman's suffrage amendment.

Earlier judicial decisions against the use of voting machines led to constitutional provisions authorizing such machines in Pennsylvania (1901), California (1902), Virginia (1902), Connecticut (1905). Colorado (1906), and Massachusetts (1911). The movement in favor of voting machines seems to have languished after the first decade of the nineteenth century, and proposed amendments to permit the use of voting machines were rejected in Missouri in 1910 and in Ohio in 1912.

Decisions with respect to primary elections made necessary a constitutional amendment in California in order to enact primary legislation. The California amendment of 1900 was somewhat detailed and had to be amended again in 1908. Oklahoma in 1907 and Ohio in 1912 also adopted constitutional provisions with respect to primary elections.

The subject of absent voting has been an active one during the past few years, and a number of constitutional amendments have dealt with this subject. Probably in most cases such amendments were unnecessary but the subject was one of popular interest and such a subject is apt to come into constitutional amendments irrespective of whether an amendment is necessary in order to permit legislative action. However. it should be borne in mind that during the Civil War a number of laws were held unconstitutional which made provision for absent voting by soldiers. Constitutional amendments with

respect to absent voting were adopted in Michigan (1914, 1918), Massachusetts (1917), and Maryland (1918).

Oregon adopted a constitutional provision authorizing proportional representation in 1908, but nothing has yet been done under this provision. Massachusetts in 1918 adopted a constitutional amendment permitting the General Court of that state to establish compulsory voting. Rhode Island in 1911 and Massachusetts in 1918 changed the terms of various officers from annual to biennial and at the same time departed from the system of annual elections.

An important development in the field of popular participation in government has been that with respect to the initiative, referendum and recall. South Dakota in 1898 was the first state to adopt the initiative and referendum. Since that time these institutions have steadily spread until now the initiative and referendum are established by the constitutions in South Dakota (1898), Utah (1900), Oregon (1902, 1906), Nevada (1904, 1912), Montana (1906), Oklahoma (1907), Maine (1908), Missouri (1908), Arkansas (1910), Colorado (1910), Arizona (1911), New Mexico (1911), California (1911), Idaho (1912), Ohio (1912), Nebraska (1912), Washington (1912), Michigan (1908, 1913), North Dakota (1914, 1918), Mississippi (1914), Maryland (referendum 1915), Kansas (1914), Louisiana (1914), and Massachusetts (1918). The Utah and Idaho amendments are merely directory to the legislatures of those states, and legislation making the Utah amendment effective was not enacted until 1917; no legislation bringing these institutions into operation has yet been enacted in Idaho.

In a number of states that have adopted the initiative and referendum, efforts have been made by subsequent constitutional amendments to restrict these institutions or to impose limitations upon their use. In every case restrictive proposals have been rejected by the people.

The initiative and referendum provisions of the various states will be fully analyzed in another publication, and the purpose here is merely to call attention to the extent to which they have developed, and to indicate the importance of this movement as one concerning the extended share of popular participation in government.

The recall has had a similar development, although this development began much later than that of the initiative and referendum. Recall provisions now exist in Oregon (1908), California (1911), Arizona (1911, 1912), Colorado (1912), Idaho (1912), Nevada (1912), Washington (1912), Michigan (1913), Kansas (1914), and Louisiana (1914). An Arkansas constitutional amendment adopted by popular vote in 1912 was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of that State.1

A Colorado constitutional amendment of 1912 adopted the socalled recall of judicial decisions. Since 1914 the movement for the recall seems to have lost momentum.

The initiative and referendum have in a number of states been applied to constitutional amendments as well as to the enactment of

1 State ex rel Little Rock v. Donaghey, 106 Ark. 56 (1912).