Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T16:30:34.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Proper Safeguards for the Initiative and Referendum Petition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

W. A. Schnader
Affiliation:
Member of the Philadelphia Bar

Extract

There is probably no problem in connection with the practical operation of the initiative and referendum on which opinions differ so widely as upon that of the proper safe-guarding of the petition. In every direct legislation State a petition is required to invoke either the initiative or the referendum; and in practically every State certain safeguards have been established either by constitutional provision or by statutory enactment, to prevent the initiative petition from being prostituted by unscrupulous enemies of direct legislation or by those whose zealous advocacy of the initiative and referendum overbalances their judgment.

At the outset, there is one proposition upon which all fairminded students of government will agree, namely, that if the initiative and referendum has been established in a state constitution as a part of the State's governmental machinery, its operation should not be impaired or destroyed by indirection. Let the enemies of direct legislation openly endeavor to abolish it by amending the constitution; but failing in this purpose, they should certainly not so hobble the initiative and referendum petition under the guise of safeguarding it, as to nullify the institution itself. The framework of government should not thus be made the victim of political tricksters. Accordingly any provision ostensibly to protect the petition from misuse, which in reality aims to prohibit its legitimate use, is utterly improper and unfit.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1916

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For analysis of constitutional provisions, see Index Digest of State Constitutions published by the New York Constitutional Convention Commission, 1915, pp. 761–791.

2 Constitution of Ohio, Art. II, Section 16.

3 1914 Laws of Ohio, p. 119, Section 5175–29c.

4 Ibid., Section 5175–29g.

5 State ex rel. v. Olcott, 62 Oregon 277 (1912).

6 The secretary's of state annual report, and the governor's message, respectively.

7 See report of the secretary of state for 1912.

8 1913 Laws of South Dakota, ch. 203, p. 277.

9 1915 Laws of Washington, p. 186. Compare provisions in the Michigan Constitution of 1908 (Art. XVII, Sec.2) requiring petitions for constitutional amendments to be signed at regular registration or election places under the supervision of and verified by the officials thereof. These requirements were omitted in the amendment adopted in 1914.

10 Constitution of California, Art IV, Section I.

11 Constitution of California, Art. IV, Section 1; Laws of Ohio, 1911–1915, p. 295, Gen. Code, Section 5175–29i.

12 Ibid.

13 Constitution of New Mexico, Art. IV, Section 1.

14 1914 Laws of Ohio, p. 119; cf. Laws, 1914–1915, pp. 295, 443.

15 Constitution, Article IV, Section 57.

16 Constitution, Article V, Section 1.

17 Constitution, Article III, Section 1 A.

18 Constitution, Article II, Section 1 B.

19 Constitution, Article II, Section 25.

20 Constitution, Article IV, Section 1.