No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Constitutional Initiative in Operation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
Out of the period at the beginning of this century in which revolt and revision of the lines of established political control produced the Progressive movement, the initiative was developed as a means for amending state constitutions. It may not be said with accuracy, however, that the initiative was a product solely of the Progressive movement. Men such as Dr. John R. Haynes of California and W. S. U’Ren of Oregon were urging the initiative in their respective states before the Progressive movement crystallized. Nevertheless, the initiative was a tool much to the Progressives’ liking, and most of the states that adopted it as a method of amending their constitution did so during the time in which the Progressives were at the height of their effectiveness as a party group.
- Type
- American Government and Politics
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1939
References
1 Oregon (1902), Nevada (1905), Oklahoma (1907), Missouri (1908), Arkansas and Colorado (1910), Arizona and California (1911), Nebraska and Ohio (1912), Michigan (1913), North Dakota (1914), Massachusetts (1918).
2 Hallett, George Jr., “The Constitutional Initiative Starts a New Advance,” National Municipal Review, Vol. 24, pp. 254–257 (May, 1935)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Massachusetts Law Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Supp.), February, 1932Google Scholar; Acts and Resolves of the [Massachusetts] General Court (1936), p. 538Google Scholar; ibid. (1937), p. 615.
4 Initiated amendments adopted, 1932–1938:
1932: Arizona—Legislative reapportionment
California—State liquor control
Colorado—Repeal of prohibition
Michigan—State liquor control commission
Tax limitation
Missouri—Executive budget
Regulation of legislative expenses
Oregon—State water and power development
North Dakota—Repeal of prohibition
1933: Oregon—Repeal of prohibition
Ohio—County home rule
State tax limitation
1934: Nebraska—Unicameral legislature
Parimutual betting legalized
Colorado—Restricting use of taxes on automobiles
California—Liquor control amended
Strengthening state civil service
Establishing new system of selecting judges
Attorney-general made law enforcement head
Permitting judges to comment on failure to testify
Permitting pleas of guilty before committing magistrate
1935: Oklahoma—Homestead exemption
Old age relief
1936: Colorado—Old age pensions
Taxation of motor vehicles
Missouri—Conservation commission
Teacher retirement benefits
Ohio—Prohibiting sales tax on food
Oklahoma—Provision for care of needy persons
1938: Arizona—Prohibiting legislators holding appointive office
Arkansas—Tax exemption of new industries
Regulating practice of law
Filling vacancies in public office
Michigan—Prohibition of gas tax diversion
North Dakota—Prohibiting legislators from accepting state employment
Non-partisan election of tax commissioner
Providing for disbursement of state funds
Establishing state board of higher educations
5 See Shoup, Earl L., “Judicial Abrogation of County Home Rule in Ohio,” in this Review, Vol, 30, pp. 540–545 (June. 1936)Google Scholar.
6 Initiated amendments adopted, 1904–38, listed by subject and number adopted:
Taxation and indebtedness—21
Prohibition and liquor control—14
Local government—10
Courts and court reorganization—9
General state government—8
Initiative, referendum, recall—6
Restrictions on legislature's power—8
Suffrage and voting—5
Legislative reapportionment—3
Legislative sessions—3
Constitutional conventions—3
Social welfare—3
Schools—3
Civil service—2
Executive budget—2
State lands—2
7 Swisher, Carl B., Motivation and Technique in the California Constitutional Convention, 1879 (Claremont, 1930)Google Scholar. This contains an excellent account of these conditions.
8 Key, V. O. Jr., and Crouch, W. W., Operation of the Initiative and the Referendum in California (Publications of the University of California at Los Angeles in the Social Sciences [Berkeley, University of California Press, 1939])Google Scholar.
9 Walter, David O., “Representation of Metropolitan Districts,” National Municipal Review, Vol. 27, pp. 129–137 (March, 1938)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 Hichborn, Franklin, Story of the California Legislature of 1911 (San Francisco, 1911), p. 85Google Scholar. An extensive study of the regional factors has been made by Bemis, George W. in Regionalism and Sectionalism in the California Legislature, 1911–1926 (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of California, 1934)Google Scholar.
11 Bird, Frederick L. and Ryan, F. M., The Recall of Public Officers (New York, 1930), p. 29Google Scholar.