¹ The question of calling a constitutional convention must be submitted. Likewise all alterations made by such conventions, as well as all amendments proposed by the legislature. Const, of Ill. Art. 14, sections 1 and 2.

² Ibid. Separate section.

³ Ibid. Art. 4, sec. 18. The constitutional limitation on indebtedness (without a referendum) is $250,000.

⁴ Ibid. Art. 11, sec. 5.

⁵ Ibid. Art. 4, sec. 33. By additional appropriations is meant all above $3,500,000

⁶ The question of a bond issue submitted in 1908 although technically an amendment to the separate section of the constitution relating to the canal was likewise in fact incurring indebtedness beyond the constitutional limit.

⁷ See page 399.

⁸ The negative vote on the proposition submitted in 1846 is marked in the official records as incomplete, hence the 70 per cent, given above is inaccurate. The total vote was probably much larger than this.

⁹ The two measures of 1884 are not included because the negative vote was not recorded in the election returns. As the success of these measures was determined by the proportion of the affirmative vote to the total vote it was not considered necessary to keep a record of the negative vote.

¹⁰ See page 396.

¹¹ Thus if the Republican party favored a proposed amendment its ballots would contain the words “For the proposed amendment to section — of article — of the constitution.” When such a ballot was cast it was counted as a vote for the amendment unless the voter drew a line through these words, which action was equivalent to a negative vote.

¹² The expedient of securing a straight party vote upon questions submitted to a popular vote has been resorted to in recent years in Nebraska and Ohio. By this system a voter, on voting the party ticket, votes automatically on the measure. See Dodd, W. F., Revision and Amendment of State Constitutions, p. 188.Google Scholar

¹³ The Springfield Journal, Oct. 9, 1877, gives a facsimile of the Sangamon County Republican ticket.

¹⁴ See an editorial in the Illinois State Register, Oct. 31,1886. Also the Springfield Journal Oct. 30, of the same year.

¹⁵ The party was also accused of disloyalty to the measure on other grounds. See separate pamphlet in the Illinois State Register, Nov. 2, 1886.

¹⁶ The banking law amendment of 1898 which required only a majority on the proposition became law with the approval of 14 per cent, of the voters participating in the election.

¹⁷ Amendment to the Official Ballot Act of 1891. Laws of Ill., 1899, pp. 151, 216.

¹⁸ For instance in 1908 the proposed banking law amendment appeared on the ballot as follows:

“Proposed Amendment to General Banking Law.

“Amending sections 4, 5, 10, and 11 of the General Banking Law. (Laws, 1907, p. 52.)”

In 1906 the following appeared:

“Proposition to sell certain lands of the Illinois and Michigan Canal.

“Shall that part and portion of the Illinois and Michigan Canal and the ninety (90) foot strip on each side thereof which lie northerly from the point where the northerly line of the present channel of the sanitary district of Chicago in the City of Joliet, Will County, Ill., in sections—together with all property, lands, lots, laterals, feeders, locks, and gates which are a part of said portion of said canal to be sold at public venue (vendue) to the highest and best bidder for cash after giving at least ninety (90) days previous notice of such proposed sale by publication in at least one newspaper of general circulation published daily in each of the cities of Chicago and Joliet, as an entirety and in such parcels as the Governor and Canal Commissioners shall determine to be for the best interests of the state with power to the Canal Commission to reserve the right to reject any and all bids and in case bids or any parts thereof are rejected to readvertise and sell the same and also to execute the necessary deed or deeds to convey the title to the respective parcels sold to the purchaser or purchasers thereof (Laws, 1905, p. 401.)”

¹⁹ The amendment proposed in 1896 sought to amend the amending clause in order to enable the legislature to propose amendments to more than one article at a time.

²⁰ Other states have had a similar experience with the separate ballot. In Idaho referendum measures submitted in 1906 and 1908 upon separate ballots received almost twice the number of votes cast upon measures submitted during the years immediately preceding when such a ballot was not used. South Dakota has likewise increased the size of referendum votes by the same method. See Dodd, , Revision and Amendment of State Constitutions, p. 277.Google Scholar

²¹ Springfield Journal, 1892, Nov. 7 and 8.

²² Except when entire constitutions with separate articles were submitted at special elections no more than four propositions have ever appeared on the same ballot. Sometimes, however to the state-wide questions are added numerous others of a local nature, so that the voter is often confronted with a formidable array of measures.

²³ 70 per cent. on the amendment, 61 per cent, on question No. 1, 57 per cent, on question No. 2, and 56 per cent, on question No. 3.

²⁴ Neither the sale of Illinois and Michigan Canal lands nor banking acts are likely to enthuse the voter, while constitutional amendments may or may not be of general interest.

²⁵ The Illinois State Register and Springfield Journal, the latter of which urged all newspapers to inaugurate a policy of general discussion.

²⁶ The Springfield Journal, which may be taken as typical, devoted three editorials and no news space to the amendment of 1878, one editorial to the two propositions of 1884, while the contract labor amendment of 1886 filled page after page of news space.

²⁷ The only mention of referendum measures to be found are short editorials of indorsement or denunciation. In 1892 the Springfield papers contained one or two editorials each. Propositions of 1894 and 1896 received relatively the same amount of attention.

²⁸ In 1904, Mr. Deneen, then candidate for governor, declared that the constitutional amendment then pending was not threatened by open hostility but by ignorance and indifference. He cited as an example an instance from southern Illinois where sixty voters were questioned concerning the proposal. All except one confessed to absolute ignorance and that one revealed his ignorance by his explanation.

²⁹ The Galesburg Republican Register, in one issue, appeared with a four-column editorial endorsing the amendment. St. Louis papers, reaching the great mass of voters in southern Illinois, also contributed to the cause.

³⁰ Both Mr. Deneen and Mr. Stringer, candidates for governor, favored it in several of their addresses.

³¹ They were decorated with white badges bearing the legend, “Vote yes for the charter amendment.”

³² The separate ballot is popularly known as the “little ballot” to distinguish it from the large ballot upon which the names of candidates appear.

³³ These were public policy measures. It should also be noted that they were questions of direct interest to the voters, while the amendment directly affected only the voters of Chicago. However the fact that the public policy votes were regarded as in no way binding may have reduced the size of the votes on these measures.

³⁴ But banking law amendments, which are also technical in nature, have always fared worse than other propositions.

³⁵ It should be repeated that the banking and public policy measures do not require a majority of the total vote at the election.

³⁶ This was the state house appropriation measure. On one of the two occasions when it was defeated the negative vote almost tripled the affirmative.

³⁷ It received an affirmative vote of 84,645 while 93,420 votes were against it.

³⁸ Proposed amendments are confronted with a further difficulty arising from the constitutional provision prohibiting the submission of proposed amendments to more than one article at the same election, or amendments to the same article more than once in four years.