The constitution of California—filling one hundred and sixty-five pages of fine print—has been the object of so much criticism, and even ridicule, that the people of the state are fairly well agreed that it ought to be given an overhauling. As to the nature and extent, as well as the method, of the proposed reconstruction, there is, however, little or no harmony of view. The fact that the state electorate has on a number of occasions declined to sanction the calling of a constitutional convention does not indicate that it is content to leave things as they are. But what, it is asked, might such an assembly do? Should it tamper with those sections dealing with the initiative, referendum, or recall, its work would come to nothing. Should it impair the powers of the railroad commission, or abolish the judicial,council, or set up a new basis of taxation, or lessen the independence of the regents of the state university, or raise the salaries of legislative and executive officials, or take any one of a dozen other courses of action, large sections of the electorate would oppose the revised instrument. It is a fairly safe assumption that a constituent assembly that radically revised the present constitution would see its work discarded by the people. Therefore, since a constitutional convention could do nothing effective, why waste money on a futile adventure?

Since the adoption of the present constitution in 1879, there has been no studied revision. Californians have changed the instrument when and as they have seen fit, acting largely on proposals of the legislature. They have followed no systematic plan; yet in most instances they have acted wisely. Piecemeal, sporadic, and unscientific modifications are not likely to produce a document of sufficient symmetry of form to be admired; nevertheless, the government thus established may prove quite workable, and, as American state governments go, highly successful.