Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T14:32:57.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State Constitutional Development in 19361

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

George C. S. Benson
George C. S. Benson
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Something more aggressive than the laws of probability determined the fate of state constitutional amendments last year. Yea-sayers dominated nay-sayers in the ratio of three to two. Ninety amendments of the 158 under consideration in 35 states received the electoral imprimatur. In this general mood of acceptance, only California was steadfastly negativistic, rejecting 16 of the 20 proposed changes. Louisianians, on the other hand, took practically all that was offered—with unselective enthusiasm approving 33 of the 34 amendments on their imposing ballots.

Type
American State and Local Government
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , April 1937 , pp. 280 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1937

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

2 No former issue of this Review has noted so impressive a list. It is possible that 1936 was actually an unusually fruitful twelvemonth, but it may also be that, because of incomplete responses to questionnaires in the years prior to 1935, some states voting on amendments were omitted from previous lists.

3 In all cases, the affirmative vote is given first.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.