C4TH CONGRESS 1 CWATF (DOCUMENT Mission THE STATE-WIDE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM AN ARTICLE ON THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE STATE-WIDE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM STATUTES, WHAT THEY ARE, WHERE THEY ARE IN USE, AND HOW THEY WORK By JUDSON KING EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. THE NATIONAL POPULAR GOVERNMENT LEAGUE PRESENTED BY MR. OWEN MARCH I, 1917. Ordered to be printed WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1917 SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 384. (Reported by Mr. Chilton.) IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, March 2, 1917. Resolved, That the manuscript submitted by the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Owen), on March first, nineteen hundred and seven- teen, entitled "The Present Status of the State- Wide Initiative and Referendum," by Judson King, executive secretary, the National Popular Government League, be printed as a Senate Document. Attest: JAMES M. BAKEH, Secretary. THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM: WHAT THEY ARE, WHERE THEY ARE IN USE, HOW THEY WORK. WHAT IS MEANT BY THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM? The initiative and referendum, are well-tried and orderly means of enabling the voters to control the acts of their legislators and secure the legislation demanded by a majority of the people. DEFINE THE INITIATIVE. The initiative is a method by which a bill persistently blocked in the legislature but which the people desire, may, by means of a peti- tion, be brought to a direct vote at a regular State election and enacted into a law if the majority votes "Yes." For example: The people of Maine for years demanded a direct primary law. The legislature refused to pass it. An initiative petition, signed by 12,000 voters, was filed. The law was submitted at the general election of 1911, and adopted by a vote of 65,810 to 21,774. It has since been in operation. DEFINE THE REFERENDUM. The referendum is a method by which any objectionable law passed by a legislature and signed by the governor may, by petition of the people, be referred to the voters at the ensuing general elec- tion, and vetoed by them if the majority votes "No." For example: The Legislature of Washington, in 1915, enacted a law seriously crippling the publicly owned port of Seattle. This port had been built at an expense to the people of nearly $7,000,000. It has a fine public grain elevator, a big refrigerator for fruit, public warehouses, docks, piers, markets, etc. It was efficient and much cheaper than the private ports. The act was recognized instantly as the first step of the big corporation interests to put the public port out of .business. The following is from Bulletin No. 9 issued by the Port of Seattle Commission : When the act was pending the people protested vehemently against the passage of so vicious a bill. Mass meetings were held in public halls. Commercial bodies, civic organizations, women's clubs, and improvement societies throughout the city and district transmitted resolutions and telegrams demanding the defeat of the measure. Representatives of such organizations went to Olympia at their own expense and personally appealed to members against legislation so needless, so undemocratic; reactionary, and unsound. Notwithstanding the aroused public sentiment, the two larger newspapers in Seattle (particularly the Post-Intelligencer) demanded the emas- culation of the port commission. Under the whip of the party machine the legislature 3 * r* A A 4 STATE- WIDE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. adopted word for -,vord (lie bill of the special interests and rejected all other amend- ments, suggestions, and presentation of facts. Within 90 days a petition signed by over G per cent of the voters of Washington was filed with the secretary of state, the law suspended, and at the election of January 7, 1916, the voters rejected the act of the legislature by the overwhelming vote of 195,253 against to 45,264 for. So this public port, the "ocean gateway of the Northwest," was saved, and the business men of Seattle, who had done practically nothing to secure the initiative and referendum for Washington, awoke to its value as a safeguard for legitimate business as well as for the general public. DO THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM "ABOLISH THE LEGISLATURE"? Not at all. The claim that they do or are so intended is a false charge, made by its opponents to deceive and prejudice the people. Legislatures proceed exactly as at present and enact the vast bulK of legislation. No law referred by the initiative or referendum goes on the ballot except by special petition. ARE THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM "NEW" AND " REVOLU- TIONARY"? No. From the beginning of our Government the American people have retained the right to control certain things by direct vote, such as State constitutions or amendments thereto, bond issues, city charters, the location of State and county seats of government, boundary lines, etc.* The initiative and referendum simply extends these powers by enabling the people to compel a vote on any question they desire to vote upon. They are modern methods made necessary by changed modern conditions, but they are based directly upon the old American doc- trine of the people's right to self-government. The Massachusetts constitution of 1780, the first constitution in the world to be adopted by a vote of the people, contains in its famous Bill of Rights this declaration : VII. Government is constituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor or private interest of any one man, family or class of men: Therefore, the people alone have an incon- testable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter or totally change the same, uhen their protection, safety, prosperity or happiness require it. The equally famous Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 has almost the same language, and every State constitution since adopted contains similar declarations and in similar language. BY WHAT PROCESS ARE THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM ESTABLISHED ? It is necessary to change the State constitution by amending the clause by which the people grant legislative power to the legislatures so as to reserve legislative power in the hands of the people by the initiative and referendum. STATE-WIDE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 5 WHAT NEED IS THERE OF THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM IN AMERICAN STATES? Says President Woodrow Wilson: The methods of our legislatures make the operations of political machines easy, for very little of our legislation is formed and effected by open debate upon the floor. Almost all of it is framed in lawyer's offices, discussed in committee rooms, and passed without debate. Bills that the machine and its backers do not desire are smothered in committee; measures whicfi they do desire are brought out and hurried through their passage. It happens again and again that great groups of such bills are rushed through in Hie hurried hours that mark the close of the legislative sessions, when everyone's vigilance is weakened by fatigue and when it is possible to do secret things. When we stand in the presence of these things and see how complete and sinister their operation has been, we cry out with no little truth that we no longer have repre- sentative government. If we felt that we had genuine representative government in our State legislatures, no one would propose the initiative and referendum in America.' They are being pro- posed now as a means of bringing our representatives back to the consciousness that what they are bound in duty and in mere policy to do is to represent the sovereign people whom they profess to serve, and not the private interests which creep into their councils by way of machine orders and committee conferences. It must be remembered by every candid man who discusses these matters that we are contrasting the operation of the initiative and referendum, not with the repre- sentative government which we have in theory, but with the actual state of affairs. (Address at Kansas City, May 5, 1911.) v WHO FAVOR AND WHO OPPOSE THEM? The men and women of every political faith who believe in the American doctrines of majority rule and government by the people arc favorable. There have been planks favoring the initiative and referendum in the platforms of all political parties at various times and places. Organizations of the producing classes such as farmer's unions, granges, labor organizations, and reform leagues are for them. They arc strenuously opposed by all the big trusts and corporations, the reactionary politicians of all parties, nearly all the corporation lawyers, and every corrupt political boss in the United States. There are a few honest conservatives who doubt its wisdom and oppose it for unselfish reasons. This is the line-up. HOW MANY STATES HAVE ADOPTED THEM? The following table shows that a total of 21 States have adopted constitutional amendments which grant these powers in some form. A few provisions arc utterly worthless; the majority of them are defective, but a few States have complete and adequate amendments where a fair try-out of the system has been had. 6 STATE-WIDE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. TABLE No. 1.- Progress and status of the Stale-wide initiative and referendum. [Total 21 States, February, 1917.] Date of adop- tion. State. Popular vote on amendment. Character of amendment. For. . 23,816 19.219 U2,024 4,393 36,374 180, 383 51,991 177,615 91,383 89, 141 12,534 3lj 742 138, 181 189, 200 110,110 43,658 312,592 9,956 219,388 48, 783 19, 118 51,880 Against. 1898 1900 1902 1905 1906 1907 1908 1908 1910 1910 1911 1911 1911 1912 1912 1912 1912 1912 1913 1914 1914 1915 South Dakota 16, 483 7,786 5,688 792 6,616 73, 059 23, 712 147,290 39,680 28,698 3,920 13,399 44,850 15,315 43,905 13, 490 231,312 1,027 152, 038 19,964 8,718 24, 659 Poor. Worthless. Good. Defective. Poor. Defective. Do. Fair. Poor. Fair. Excellent. Worthless. Excellent. Defective. Poor. Worthless. Fair. Good. Fair. Bad. Excellent. Good. Utah 1 Oregon Nevada Montana Oklahoma Maine Missouri Arkansas Arizona New Mexico (referendum only) California Nebraska Idaho 1 . .. . Ohio Nevada (adds initiative) Michigan North Dakota Mississippi Maryland (referendum only) Total 1,923,451 1 932,401, 1 Amendment not self-executing. The legislature has refused to pass an enabling act. Hence the people have never been permitted to use it Note this: Total vote for President, 191G 18, 531, 778 Total vote in 20 States where the initiative and referendum is in active operation 6, 400, 177 One-third of the voters of the United States have the initiative and referendum in State affairs. IS IT TRUE THAT THERE IS A REACTION AGAINST THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM IN THE COUNTRY? No. The charge is without foundation in fact. There has been a let-up the world around in every reform movement since the beginning of the war in Europe. The people arc simply marking tune. Yet three States have adopted the initiative and referendum since the beginning of the war, and it is a live political issue in 13 other States at present (February, 1917). There is no Question among well- informed, thinking men but that this war will be followed by the most tremendous forward strides toward political and economic democracy the world has known. HOW HAVE THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM WORKED IN THE STATES WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN USED? Progressives- say they work well; reactionaries say they work badly. The opinion of the great masses of the voters can be known from election returns. In 1910 the Oregon Legislature proposed a convention to revise the State constitution. The people recognized in it an attempt to destroy the effectiveness of the initiative and referendum, and rejected STATE-WIDE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 7 the proposition by a vote of 23,143 for to 59,974 against. This was an indirect test of public opinion as to the value of the initiative and referendum . In 1915 the Legislature of Washington passed a law which made the initiative arid referendum unworkable. A referendum petition was filed, and the law rejected in 1916 by a vote of 62,117 for to 196,363 against. Test votes of like character in other States show the same results. It is significant, that no political party or politician in the initiative and referendum States lias ever advocated its abolition; and no Slate which lias adopted it has ever abolished it. The feeling of the great majority everywhere is aptly expressed by Mr. William Spence, master of the 'State Grange of Oregon, as follows: The common people of Oregon would not give up the initiative and referendum. No one fights it here but the corporations and grafting politicians it has put out of a job. Mr. C. B. Kegley, master of the Washington State Grange, a farm leader of national reputation, says: In the last two elections the people of Washington have tried out the initiative and referendum and proved their worth. You may as well talk of changing this State into a monarchy as to expect the people to return to the old system. The reason is evident. Just after the election of 1916 the leading corporation lobyist of our State said to me: U I can easily beat you fellows in the legislature but when you go to the people and get us into the open you have no trouble in winning your case. I have had about as much as I want of your kind of politics." The New Republic Magazine of New York investigated the direct legislation results of the 1914 election, in which a total of 110 initiative and referendum questions were voted upon in 14 States. The esti- mate was guarded and conservative. In his conclusion the author, Mr. Robert E. Gushing, says: The popular voting on measures last November can not be called unintelligent. A scanning of the vote on separate measures discloses an almost total absence of that tendency to treat all propositions alike, which betrays an indifferent ignorance. The more exacting the task imposed upon the people the more painstakingly and dis- creetly did they perform it ' *. Whether the voter's judgment was good or bad, he justified the referendum ballot by using it to give himself precisely what he wanted. Editorially the New Republic said, in connection with this report: The conclusive argument in favor of direct government is consequently educa- tional ' *. A democracy is not educated up to the level of its responsibilities by decisions made by its representatives or by principles of "legal morals'' established by its forbears, or by the power of vetoing unjust ligislation conferred on judges * * *. If a political democracy is to learn its business it must participate directly in the trans- action of its business. ADVANTAGES OF THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. First. It educates and vitalizes citizenship. Says the editor of the Oregon State Journal (August, 1912): It keeps the average citizen in touch with current legislation. It brings home the duty and responsibility of helping make laws. It awakens a realization of factorship in State concerns * * *. We are not completely fit, no doubt, but the use of this privilege and power will make the people more fit, constantly and even rapidly. 8 STATE-WIDE INITIATIVE AND BEFERENDUM. Says Dr. John R. Haynes, of Los Angeles, one of California's greatest citizens : From an educational standpoint the initiative and referendum have been worth their cost a thousandfold. They have acted as a sort of great popular university to stimulate the intellectual faculties of the people. They have made the individual less selfish, more thoughtful of the welfare of others; they have given him a new feeling of social solidarity. (Address, 1917.) Second. Legislation is kept abreast of the times. Needed reforms are not delayed for many years since they can be enacted through the initiative. Every initiative and referendum State shows reforms of great practical value, voted by the people over the heads of the politicians. Third. Legislatures become much more responsive to the will of the people and increasingly so as time goes on. The__niere presence of the initiative and referendum forces much good legislation upon which thepeople do not vote at all. Judge William R. King, former associate justice of the Supreme Court of Oregon, at present chief counsel for the United States Reclamation Service, writes: In my opinion the initiative and referendum has been instrumental in giving the people of this State (Oregon) more wise and progressive legislation than they would have secured under the representative system only. The mere fact that the people have within their power the right to initiate measures or refer them by referendum has served as a great check upon bad legislation in the legislative assembly, and, at the same time, it has furnished a motive for better legis- lation, to say nothing of the fact that the people have initiated a number of reforms by direct vote which were defeated by the legislature. Fourth. The referendum especially is the greatest foe to bribery known. Corporations hesitate to spend money to secure laws which the people can easily kill by a referendum vote. Fifth. The initiative and referendum are especially valuable in /times of great crises, when laws involving millions of dollars or the health and happiness of millions of people' are at stake. Sixth. It promotes efficiency in government. Hon. William Kent, former Congressman and now member of the Federal Tariff Commission, says: , The old constitutional checks and balances have but worked for inefficiency. The old system has arrived, not at majority rule, but at a nefarious system of rule by power- ful and dictatorial minorities that most of all need money for success and are prepared to reciprocate in terms of special privilege, and so on around and around in an unending circle of corruption and privilege. The whole modern theory is that we must shorten the ballot as much as possible, provide a minimum of elective and a maximum of appointive offices, place great power and great responsibility in the hands of a few, and then control them by direct popular action, by means of the initiative, referendum, and recall. (Address at Harvard University.) Seventh. Initiated laws not only avoid destructive " jokers " which nullify their effectiveness, but are usually better prepared and more carefully drafted than legislative acts. STATE-WIDE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. Hon. Richard W. Montague, a distinguished attorney of the Port- land bar ; writes: My personal opinion, based upon an examination of all the general laws of Oregon in force in 1910, in pursuance of the duty of compiling the official publication of the statutes, made under public authority in that year, is that in all that pertains to the technique of draftsmanship, legislation passed under the initiative is markedly supe- rior -to the average of the statutes passed by the legislature. .This superiority is not inherent, of course, but results naturally from the fact that these laws have mostly been drafted by a rather large committee of persons having a lively interest in the - matter in hand and some practical knowledge of it, besides what knowledge they may have of the general requirements of legislation; and that the framers were aware that their measure once launched must go as it is, for better or worse. WHAT OBJECTIONS ARE MADE TO THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM ? The following arc the leading objections everywhere raised against the adoption 01 the system of " direct legislation/'' as the initiative and referendum are collectively known. As far as possible, the facts of actual experience are given in answer. First objection. This Nation was founded upon the "representative principle." The initiative and referendum conflict with this prin- ciple and would change or destroy our form of government. Answer. Senator Kobert L. Owen, of Oklahoma, in a speech before the United States Senate, March 3, 1913, said: This Republic was not founded on any so-called "representative principle/' The representative is merely a convenience, a servant, an agency, subject of right to the direct control of the people. This Republic was founded on the principle that the people were sovereign and had a right, if they pleased, to manage their business directly, a God-given right, vested in them, inalienable and indefeasible, directly to alter, amend, or abolish any law. Every State constitution except one was established by the direct law-making power of the people. The option to use the initiative and referendum is not in conflict with the present convenient system of legislating through representatives, but is in harmony with that system and makes it more representative, not less representative. Second objection. It would establish the "tyranny of the major- ity." The minority would be unprotected. Answer. This prediction, made by the highest conservative author- ities, is an astonishing admission that wo do not now have majority rule in the United States. And it is a fact. Our whole system lends itself to the rule of the propertied minority over the numerical major- ity, and this is exactly why the people demand direct legislative power. Third objection. It would result in "minority rule." Answer. The claim is that only a small number would vote on measures, hence laws would or might be enacted by a minority of tho voters of a State. It must bo remembered that measures are not voted on at special initiative and referendum elections, but at regular elections at which State and national officers are chosen. 10 STATE- WIDE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. Discarding prophecy, t-lio cold facts of all the initiative and referen- dum election returns show that, compared with the total vote for candidates, an average of 75.7 per cent of the voters have voted on every question, 84.6 per cent of the voters have voted on the most important questions, 68.3 per cent of the voters have voted on the least important questions. The following table from which the above figures are taken, covers all the State-wide measures submitted by initiative and referendum petitions in the United States to date. It shows the interest the peo- ple have taken in the 350 questions submitted in 72 elections in 14 States from 1904 to 1916. In several instances the vote on measures exceeded the vote cast on Congressmen, governor, or even the President. TABLE No. 2. Average per cent of the vote cast on measures submitted by initiative and referendum petitions as compared to the total vole for candidates. General election cf Number of Slates iisin^ initiative and ref- erendum. Average per cent total vote on highest measures. Average per cent total vote on lowest measures. Average per cent total vote on all measures. 1904 - - 1 84 73 78 190C 1 83 67 77 1908 4 84 71 79 1910 5 84 62 73 1912 10 82 68 72 1914 14 84 63 70 1916 14 91 74 82 84.6 68.3 75.7 WHAT THIS TABLE TROVES. Applying this table to the presidential election of November 7, 1916, we have the following results in the 14 States which used initia- tive and referendum in that election: Total vote for President (or governor), 14 States 4, 785, 783 Average total on most important measures 4, 355, 062 Average total on least important measures 3, 541, 479 Average total vote on all measures 3, 924, 342 or, to put it more concretely, out of every man or woman voter who cast a ballot for president or governor 'in these 14 States, over 9 voters out of 10 voted on the most vital measures; over 7 voters out of 10 voted on the most trivial measures; over 8 voters out of 10 voted on every question submitted. Nonvoters are not entitled to any legal or moral considerations as affecting the result of a vote upon a measure any more than failure to vote upon a candidate. Abraham Lincoln, in his opinion on the admission of West Vir- ginia, wrote: It is a universal practice in the popular elections in all these States to give no legal consideration whatever to those who do not choose to vote, as against the effect of the votes of those who do choose to vote. IJ^nfe it is not the qualified voters, but the qualified voters who choose to vote, that constitute the political power of the State. STATE-WIDE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 11 Fourth objection. It would weaken the responsibility, dignity, and authority of legislative bodies. Answer. It has not done so in any American State nor in Switzer- land, where it has been in operation for over 50 years. Contrariwise, it strengthens any legislator who is trying to serve and not govern the people. Men who prate of dignity and authority have the European, not the American conception of government. Americans arc not supposed to elect masters to rule over them. Fifth objection. If the people are to make the laws, what is the use of a legislature ? Answer. The initiative and referendum do not abolish the legis- lature or the need for one. They are called into action only in emergencies, when the legislature fails to accomplish the will of the people, and usually upon important questions. Since the initiative and referendum were established in Oregon over 98 per cent of the laws have been enacted by the legislature. In other States the percentage is higher than this. (Hon. Robert Grosser, Congressman from Ohio and author of the Ohio provision for the initiative and referendum.) Sixth objection. There would be too many elections and the cost would bankrupt the State. Answer. This is usually a willful misrepresentation, made to deceive the people. Initiative and referendum questions in all States are submitted at the regular general elections. Special elections, on issues of great moment, can be called only by the governor or State legislature, as is provided in the initiative and referendum amend- ment. Only one such election has yet been called in all the 20 States having the initiative and referendum. The cost of printing and counting of ballots is but a slight addition to the cost of a general election. The people of the initiative and referendum States are not complaining about the expense. Seventh objection. There would be too many questions on the ballot and the people would become confused. Answer. In three elections, due largely to the failure of the legis- lature to carry out the will of the people, a relatively large number of questions have been submitted in Oregon through the initiative and referendum. Political experts have been astonished at the ease and intelligence with which the voters disposed of these questions. The citizens of Oregon are not worried, but there seems to be great alarm among eastern newspaper editors lest the minds of our people be overstrained. I fear that the fact that we are voting on vital issues, which certain people would not like to see raised, is what troubles some. The people of Oregon consider that they are as capable of deciding on 30 measures with four months preparation and more, as the legislature is on 824 measures in 40 days. (William S. U'Ren, father of the "Oregon system.") Critics now use as a " horrible example" the California election of 1914, at which 48 questions were on the ballot. They forgot to men- tion the fact that 27 of these were constitutional amendments sub- mitted by the State legislature and 21 by the people. 12 STATE-WIDE INITIATIVE AND BEFERENDUM. In 72 elections there have been but four in which over 20 questions have been submitted by petition. But men who strenuously oppose the needed "short ballot" reform and exhibit no alarm over a ballot carrying the names of from 50 to 200 candidates, are horrified over "too many questions." But here is a table which tells the tale of the exact number of questions submitted by petition of the people in every State and in every general election since the introduction of direct legislation. TABLE No. 3. Showing tlie number of initiative and referendum questions submitted in the United States, 1900 to 1916. 1 Adopted. State. Number of measures voted on in elections of Total. 1934 1906 1903 1910 1911 1912 1914 1915 191G 1898.. South Dakota 1 4 15 1 6 27 4 31 3 19 .... 5 8 22 113 1 11 18 14 7 14 46 38 34 1902 Oregon 2 11 1905. .. 1906. 1907. .. 1908. 1908. 1910. 1910. 1911. 1911. 1911. 1912 Nevada Montana 5 4 3 1 7 26 9 6 4 4 7 1 3 13 19 21 . . .. 2 2 2 1 4 7 10 5 Oklahoma 1 7 2 Missouri Maine 3 1 Arkansas Colorado Arizona California 2 New Mexico Ohio 4 4 6 M 4 2 1912. 1912. 1913. . . 1914. . . 1914 1915 Nebraska 4 2 9 3 2 Washington... . 7 Michigan 1 North Dakota Mississippi Maryland Total measures sub- mitted " " " .. : 11 3 21 5 45 7 1 96 11 110 16 2 62 19 350 Total elections ini- tiative and refer- endum States 1 None from 1898 to 1906. Total number of State-wide elections, 1900-1916, in which it was possible to submit measures by initiative and referendum petitions 72 Total number of measures submitted by petition 350 Average number submitted at each election, 4.86, or less than 5 Number of special elections called to submit initiative and referendum questions . 1 Eigliih objection. The people are not intelligent enough to vote upon laws. Answer. The alleged ignorance of the people"%as been urged in all ages against progress in government. It was the chief argument made against the establishment of the American Republic. vSome ultraconservative people may honestly believe the people are. incom- petent, but the objection is usually made by those who fear the intel- ligence, not the ignorance of the people. The judgment of a whole State, expressed at the ballot box, after full discussion and opportunity for information, which the State should fi^nish, is about the safest guide in tho affairs of government I know of. Our \vlvlc system of government assumes the capacity of the people to judgr the worth of legislative acts. We elect men upon the meas- ures they advocate or oppose. We reclect them or not as we think the measures they have enacted good or bad. Is it not absurd then, to hold that the people have brains enough to vote upon the men but STATE-WIDE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 13 not intelligence enough to vote upon the measures themselves, printed in black and white ? I confess it is a mystery to me how some men can conceive the people to be "intelligent citizens" just before elec- tion and an "irresponsible mob" immediately after election. (Hon. George W. Norris, United States Senator from Nebraska.) Dr. E. A. Ross, professor of sociology, University of Wisconsin, writes : In 1800 the average American adult had 82 days of schooling. In 1909 this had increased to 1,046 days. In 30 years the secondary schools of the Nation have grown from 1,400 to 12,000. During the past 18 years the proportion of youth receiving high-school instruction has doubled, while the enrollment in the public high schools has more than quad- rupled. And college attendance has increased 400 per cent while the population was gaining 100 per cent. Hon. Charles E. Hughes, former associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, when governor of New York, said: The only thing you can depend on in this country is the judgment of the people after full discussion. (Speech at Olean, N. Y., Sept, 10, 1909.) Ninth objection. The people could not and would not discrimi- nate they would vote like sheep. Answer. The simple fact is, they do not. In but few instances have they voted "everything down" or "everything up." Given a fair chance, they show rare discretion; that is, where they have an honest, intelligent ballot, sample ballots to study in advance, and the State publicity pamphlet system of advertising the measures. Again, let election returns tell the story. TABLE No. 4. Showing the total number of inititive and referendum measures adopted and rejected at elections in the United States, 1904 to 1916. l Number of States Elections of using the initiative Adopted. Rejected. Total. and ref- erendum. 1904 2 2 o 1906... 3 8 2 11 1908 5 14 7 21 1910 7 10 35 45 1912... 11 43 53 96 1914... 16 32 78 110 1916 r 19 23 29 62 1 2 Total 133 217 350 'This table docs not include measures submitted by the State legislatures. Total numberof measures placed on ballot by petitions of the people. . 350 Total number adopted 133 Total number rejected 217 This table proves that the people discriminate and are conserva- tive and careful. Tenth objection. The system would be too expensive. Answer. The most expensive government in the world is that man- aged by a privileged few. The less democratic the more costly- witness Russia or the frightful squandering of the public funds ia 14 STATE- WIDE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. States controlled by political machines. The referendum is the greatest foe to extravagance in public affairs known witness the results in Oregon, South Dakota, Montana, and other States. Since measures arc ordinarily submitted at general elections the added cost is but slight. If the State adopts the expensive but inefficient system of publishing pending measures in newspapers, this cost will be quite heavy, but if they adopt the Oregon, Arizona, and California plan of sending a pamphlet to the voters, the expenses will be but a few thousand dollars for the entire State and the education of the voters by this means is worth a thousand times more than it costs. (Hon. Carl Schurz Yrooman, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.) Eleventh objection. How will the people be informed so as to vote intelligently upon questions? Answer. The problem of educating voters upon questions submitted under the initiative and referendum has been solved in California by having the secretary of state send to the voters through the mails a Eamphlct containing copies of the proposed laws, a reprint of the allot title, and also with explanatory arguments for and against each measure. In Oregon the system also includes the right of citizens or organization to present arguments, they paying the exact cost of the space taken. Ihese pamphlets arc read and studied by an unex- pectedly large proportion of our citizens and who are thereby enabled to vote intelligently. I consider the pamphlet system of great im- portance, as it is far better and cheaper than newspaper advertising. (Dr. John Randolph Haynes, father of direct legislation in California.) Twelfth objection. It is absurd to have all the laws passed by a State legislature submitted to a vote of the people. Answer. The objection is absurd and false. No legislative act ii referred unless a petition is filed against it. Ah* others go into effect in the ordinary manner. Of all the thousands of laws passed by legis- latures in initiative and referendum States, a total of only 78 have been referred by petition of the people in 72 elections. Thirteenth objection. If we have direct legislation, the colored people and the foreign elements will control the Government. Answer. During our campaign for the initiative and referendum in Arkansas in 1910 every conceivable argument calculated to frighten the voters into rejecting these peopled rule measures was brought against us by the reactionary few. We were told that ''legalized anarchy" would follow its adoption; that there would be a "French Revolution; 1 ' that we would "lapse into barbarism;" and as a crowning absurdity we were warned that with the initiative and referendum ' ' the State would be controlled by negroes." My answer to this tirade was, and is now, that what the predatory corporations, their lawyers, and politicians feared was the white people's intelligence and not those negroes or foreigners who were ignorant and uneducated. Also that it was foolish to talk about anarchy unless a majority of the people were anarchists, since nothing could be done to which a majority of the voters did not agree, and that it was an insult to call the voters anarchists. (Hon. George W. Donaghey, former governor of Arkansas.) STATE- WIDE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 15 Fourteenth objection. How about the ignorant voter? Answer. A glance at Table No. 2 will show that from 10 to 25 per cent of the voters do not vote on public questions of moment. A great majority of these are men and women too indifferent, unin- formed, or ignorant to take an interest in settling public policies, although they will vote a party ticket or for a favorite candidate. The practical result is that, without anyone arbitrarily invading their rights of citizenship, they voluntarily disfranchise themselves in respect to questions at issue by failing to vote. The 75 to 90 per cent of the voters who do vote on questions, constitute the interested, live, and intelligent citizenship of the State. It is not the uneducated or indifferent 10 to 25 per cent who do not vote, but the intelligent 75 to 90 per cent who do vote on questions that the corrupt alliance of "big business" and corrupt politicians fear. The way to deal with that class of the " foreign vote/' the " colored vote," or the " native American" vote which can be bought and " delivered," is to enact and enforce a stringent corrupt-practices act which will put in the penitentiary the men who put up the money to bribe them. THE DANGER FROM JOKERS. To work successfully, initiative and referendum amendments and enabling acts must be drafted with great care. It is better to have no system at all than a poor one. Under the guise of protecting the initiative and referendum from abuse through so-called " safeguards and restrictions," "jokers" are frequently slipped into these laws which nullify their usefulness. The most common ones are as fol- lows: "Restriction" jokers. To deny the people the right to initiate and vote upon amendments to the State constitution, thus giving them no direct control over their fundamental law. To exclude from the referendum appropriation measures of every kind ; thus pre- venting any popular control of the public purse. "Petition" jokers. To require exceedingly large petitions. The North Dakota amendment, adopted in 1912, requires a petition for a proposed amendment to the constitution to be signed "by at least 25 per cent of the legal voters in each of not less than one-half of the counties of the State." The proposed Wyoming amendment of 1912 required 25 per cent petitions. Eight per cent for the initiative and 5 per cent for the referendum are standard in the United States and are sufficient. To prohibit or make difficult the securing of petitions. In Washing- ton the legislature of 1915 passed an act making it a gross misde- meanor to circulate an initiative and referendum petition. Voters were compelled to sign in a registration offioe and before a registra- tion officer. This law was held up by referendum petition and at the election of 1916 was defeated by a vote of 196,363 to 63,117. The "publicity" joker. Extended experience shows that the best method of informing the voter upon the merits of pending measures is for the State to print and mail direct to every voter an official State public pamphlet containing copies of the measures and permit- ting citizens or organizations to file arguments for or against them by paying the exact cost of the space taken. The joker consists in continuing the old policy of publishing the pending measures in news- papers, one in each county. Thus thousands of voters have no ade- 16 STATE- WIDE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. quate opportunity for knowing before election what they are voting on. "Judicial" jokers. An initiative and referendum system which does not clearly specify court procedure is dangerously defective. For instance, if a petition is attacked in court, a" hostile judge may place the " burden of proof" as to its sufficiency upon the petitioners and require them to show that each one of the thousands of signa- tures is genuine, etc. Since this is impossible, many petitions have been thrown out of court on these grounds and have never come to a vote. Or a hostile judge may delay the decision as to the sufficiency or purity of the petition until after the election, and the efforts of the petitioners thus be brought to nothing. "Ballot title" jokers. If no careful provisions are made for the preparation or court review of ballot titles, a title may be drawn so that many voters will vote against a measure when they think they are voting for it, or vice versa. Or a ballot title may be inaccurate or prejudicial, and thus deceive the voters. The "majority" joker. Measures are voted on usually at general elections. A varying per cent of those who vote for candidates will not vote upon measures. (See Table No. 2.) Measures should be adopted or rejected by a majority of those voting upon them. The joker consists in requiring such measures to receive a majority of "all votes cast in said election" for candidates. This can seldom be obtained, as the experience of all States shows. This joker has rendered the Oklahoma initiative practically useless, since many important laws passed by a large majority of votes cast "thereon^ failed to get the constitutional majority 01 those cast in the election. The "emergency" joker. Sometimes it is necessary for tho "preservation of public peace, health, or safety" that a legislative act become operative instantly and not be subject to possible sus- pension until a referendum vote be taken, or to wait 90 days before going into effect, \vhich is the usual practice. The joker consists in permitting the legislature by a majority vote to declare anything to be "emergency," and thus annul the possibility of a referendum vote. For example, over 45 per cent of the laws passed in South Dakota for the past 10 years have been declared "emergency." In Oklahoma 60 per cent of the laws passed at the special session of 1916 w r erc declared "emergency" and no referendum vote could be had. The remedy is to require a two-thirds roll call vote upon an emergency, to state what it is, and oven then to permit a vote of tho people if asked, the law meanwhile remaining in operation. The "arbitrary limitation" joker. In Arkansas only three con- stitutional amendments can be submitted in any one election. If the legislature submits three the people are shut out. No limitation is necessary or should be tolerated. WHERE TO GET INFORMATION. The National Popular Government League, a nonpartisan organiza- tion, maintains a bureau of information upon every phase of the initiative, referendum, recall, and other measures designed to place more political power in the hands of the people. Address Judson King, executive secretary, 637 the Munsey Building, Washington, D, C. o