V' Section II r Ri gONSTITUTEONS AND X ELECTIONS ^ • r 1 ...knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/system/files/bos_1950_2.pdf · 1949. Y ' • '., ' \ ; Kentucky. A proposal for a convention

I

V'

Ri

« ^

Section II r

gONSTITUTEONS AND

ELECTIONS ^

/

X

• r /

«k

,%

1. Constitutions ><«*/

2. Electidns -- I . . • • r • • ' ' ^ - - . •

< i ^

••. t

V

- 7 ''

• ^

/ J

x/ •v- >. /";.

• #

H

'y.

'.•'!

J^

^ .;

L)'

v^

« t ^ .

I

' • *

• ^ ' .

• • . >

\ y \ • .

• "v

•ft

0

V/- «»"

.« !

/

V

/

7^

• » ^

i V-

•.. ' i

I

v

•e-'

^/

^

J'i:

/

M,

'v.

"fi r \ \..\

•^ ( • ^

A i--

y~

• I ./- ' t

%^

i'

1 /

\

Gonstitutions

;STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND GONSTITUTIONAL REVISION*

I f?

I <^"

r • 1HE BiENNiuM 1948-1949 covered by I this report has seen only one new con-

"*" stitution adopted or made effective, although more or less active moverhents for revision are under way in approximately one-third of the states. For purposes of

• convenience, these sta.tes may Be classified in three groups: /

1. State adopting a new constitution-New Jersey. "

2.. States iri which the movement for re- ' vision has been given s6me formal or legal

"rocognition^-^ California, Kansas, Ken­tucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Caro­lina, Oklahoma.

3. States in which there are active citizen groups working for constitutional revision —Florida,. Illinois,. Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. j

/ One's estimate, of-the urgency of the. neea for constitutional. revision depends^ it may be supposed, upon one's view of the importance of the states in the Amerjpan system of government. If he beli^eg that the states are'of small concern aiid that the federal governrnent (mght. to do everyr thing, then of course, revision of the state constitutions is unnecessary. The longer j some of them remain in their'present form, the easier it will be to. further undermine

^ the powers of the states iri.question, and the

I ^Prepared by W, Brooke Grayes,.Senior Special-p t in American Gove?nr?fcuit and Public Admin­istration, Legislative Reference Service, Library /of Congress. ^

more difficult it will be for them to^func-tion effectively in a, modern world. If, on the^ther hand; one believes that the states have a job to dp and-that they ought to do it, then revisibn of the constitutions •of many states becomes not only highly de­sirable.but urgently necessary.^ '

The present;discussion is concerned,, hdWiever, not so much with the theoretical need for revision as with the practical et-

' forts to bring it about.- The biennium Ijas brought the usual legislative proposals for

. constitutional re^ision,^ but few were given, formal approval. Three main obstacles to-revision continue to impede if not actually j to prevent the progress of revision. These are:* (1) lack of interest in the subject on; the part of many elected officials, both ex^ ecutive and,legislative; (2) general pu]2Jic

'Sec a series ol Papers, Delivered at the Panel on State Constitutional Devflopments, Forty-fourth Ari-nual Meeting, AmericaiiVPolitic'al Science Asso"i elation, Chicago, December, 1948, anci mimeo-jgraphed fcir^distributicm by the Louisiana Law Institute, Baton Rouge. rr\cluded. were: "New Patterris '.- in- Constitution -Making,"—Arthur-W— Bremage, University oft, Michigan; •," Procedural. Changes in State Constitutions," W. w.Brodl 'e. Graven, Library of Congress; "Substantive Changes > in State Constitutions,",Lloyld M. Short, Urii-versity of Minnesota; " M a k ^ g a New Constitu­tion Effective,"" John E. Bebo^ujt|fNatibnal Munici-pai League. . i

*The ••proposals, for the preceding bienniurri \ were listed and analyzed in some detail; see The. Book of:the States, 1948-49, pp. 79-83, 9\. Al­though the states have continued to supply the, State Law Section, Library, of Conj;ress, with' copies of bills introduced and acts passed, it has b e & irnpossiblc with the staff Available during the last two years to analyze, them. . - .

81

/ •

•w. : • : - / / - - .'.

•A •

A.

82. THE BOOK OF THE STATES'

^ .

.^

w: -J.

apathy and a disposition on the-part of a large portion of the public to regard exist­ing constitutions as gpod for all time; (3) steadfast opposition vof groups thatf&ar the • possibility of loss of privilege or/jDreferred position; • ': • ^ '.^' . '-V:' "

•The problem of constitution making is of current interest"not only in many states

. but in two of our territories-r Alaska and Hawaii, in both of which there is serious talk of constitutions as a phase of the Ipng-hoped-for transition firpm territorial status, to statehood. Much progress has been made in HaWaii; The^ Legislative Refer­ence Bureau at the University of Hawaii has prepared and issued an excellent series of reports containing basic data for usfe of a convention.•JJ'he 1949 legislative, session, acting ori^he theory thai the^gxistence of an acceptable constitution might enhance the-possibilities of admission to the Union as a state, authorized the holding of a cori- stitutidnal convention in 1950.

' '". NEW JERSEY'S NEW CONSTITUTION '.'

In the culmination of an effort extend­ing ba!x:k over a decade, revision of the New Jersey, cdu^titutiori w'as finally carried. through with a speed that woliid have been impossible save,for, the long prepara­tion.* Governor Dri^colUassumed officeiin January, 1947; he not only supported the ' movement for. revision, but "provided the active leadership without which the re-vision of the state's ceritory-'old constitu­tion would have been impossible. •^.

An act signed by hiin. o^ Tebruary 17 called for a referendum on the question of holding a convention'and for the selection of the delegates thereto on June 3, the date of the state-prirhary election. The; vote be­ing in the affifmative, and the delegates

-:haying--been-chosenj-the convention as­sembled at Rutgers University in New , Brunswick on Jund 12.. Working through the summer unc^er terrific pressure, the delegates com'pleted their tas'k three months later, in tijiie for publication a s required-by la\V, and for general discussion and debate, preceding the general election in November. The new constitution, Sup­ported by .the. leadership.of both parties, • was approved by-the people in a vote of almost four- to 'one—594,844 to 155,865.

The new charter Ijecame efTcctive on

January vl, 1948. Governor DriscoH; and . the legislaturCprdrnptly undei'tbdk its"im­plementation—a task of no inconsiderable complexity and magriitucle. .iVVhile the , legislature rernained virfually unchang^*^ (prior agreement had eliminated the pos-: sibility oflegislative reapportionment)-, the executive and judicial branches :;of the government had been thoroughly reor-^ gariiz'ed. The ^governor promptly ap­pointed Arthur T, Vanderbiltjpasl Presi­dent of the American Bar-'Association and -Dean of the New York University.School of Law, as the Chief Justice. The new con- ' stitution had abolished the old chancery courts and had made other, important changes in the judicial structure, including provision for an administrative chie:f justice to supervise^e vvork of all the courts oT the stale. Under Chief Justice Vander- . bilt's leadership, plans for: the transition were carefully and fully Worked put in ad­vance, so th^t it was possible for the Ameri-;^ can Judicature Society to report thaft New Jersey now bad the best organized judicial system in the country. :

Changes in the executive branch Were equally significant. A scattering array of overlapping departments and agencies, boards a-nd commissions'was replaced .by an . orderly, .streamlined,- administrative ,

. structure, in which the effort was made to realize modern concepts of executive re- • sponsibility. The basic provision of the constitution on this point reads as fdllo\v's (.IV;3,1): • -" , . - . : " •/-:

There shall be.Princip^l Departments in the* State . Gpvernment, 'not to exceed twenty in number, created by the Governor by exiecutivc order; and arnong arid within them shall be allocated by the Governor by. executive order all the executive and adiTunistrative offices, de-partiiients andanstrximentaliticsJ-of^tne,State_^_ Government, in such manner.as to group the same Recording to. major purposes.

< • • , . . ^ . •

In .addition, t|ie governor, was^ given power by executive order from .time to ' time; to "reorganize, merge, consolidate , and divide officqs, departments, instru* mentahties and Principal Departments," aijd to "allocate tnd reallocate thern, "in whole or in part, and the functions, powers and du t i^ of any of them among-arid with-; , in sudh offices, departments and instru^ mentalities and 'the Principal Depart-^:

\ .

- i : •

. CONSTITUriONS AND, ELECTIONS 83

ments, all in such manner as to promote . efficiency and economy in the operation of the state government." The gt)vernor,. having devoted the. first year of his ad-mijiistration to obtaining a new Constitii- " tjon, devoted^his second and much of the taird to the "effort to reconstruct, the mti-chinery of the exec^utive branch in accdrd-

. ante with the principles laid down, all of which required extensive preliiininary work

, if the plans firia'lly put in effect were tcT be\^ sound.3 • .„.•

\

[^lijo.

PROGRESS UNDER LEGAL; •' AUTHORIZATIONS' / ,

lifojnia. In June, 1947, the California legislature adopted a concurrent resolution au'thorizing a joint legislative committee on revision of the state constitutjonffand defining its 'powers an d duties. The'com-

. mittee, consisting of ten members Sp\; pointed "by the speaker of the Assembly, and ten selected by. the Rules. Committee of the Senate, was authorized antldirected "to study a'^d examine all facts rdeyant to the subject of this resd|ution" ancj to pre­pare "suitably to the needs of the "state, a draft oi" a revised constitution appropriate for use in case revis,ion^as aVyvhole is ef­fected.". It was given adequate powers and financial support, and wJks directed to "report-Its findings and 'recommendations to the legislature and' to the people from

.time to time and at any time, not later than the 1949 general session. . . ." i

J'he Joint Intcfrim Committee on Legis­lative Constitution^R«vision opened offi-

. ces in the Court HoiJsfe in 3anta Barbara, where the professicJna.l staff worked dili- v-gently S^its assignment of developing a , stream-lined constitution. They sought to shorten the nation's: second longest consti-

' tution, already amended 256 times; to de-_^ velop the basis for a rational administrative' '

- structure. A large number of the existing , agencies are—4s in • other states—specifi- *

cally pcoyidea for in the constitution, coh-.. - suming many pages; others are .created in . arid gorverned by stiatutesV The chairman

;l3elieved;that an administrative agencies

,*For tHe best briefstatement'of the major changes ^brought about by •adoption pf the new, c.ofi5titT ,-,., 'tiori, seie'Rich,'BennettM "A iSew Coiistittition for New Jersey," American Political Science Review, December, 194.7, pp. 1126-H 29. ' •

branch^ould'^be dealt with in a few pages,' as against forty or fifty in the existing-con­stitution. - :; J

The committee prepared an extensive report for the 1949 general session, but action was not taken. ,

JTflWi'aj-.rA"-proposal was introduced in the March,*!948, meeting of.the Legisla­tive Council "relating to a studj^ and re­port concerning the necessity for calling a convention to revise, amend or change the Constitution of Kansas and the presenta­tion of recommendations therefor-to>the 1949 Legislaturej.^''In an oral explanatiora, the sponsor called attention to the fact t^at Kansas now has one of theolder state con-titutions, never'^evised cpmpletely.sihce its adoption. No specific changes were sug­gested but comments \'^ere made on the possibility of savings through increased efficiency in governmental operations by thb. adoption of a modern streamlined constitution.'' The Jij^ciary Committee of the council gave (SriSf^^able thought. tD this proposal during tii^year, studying 'the provisions in constitutioHS of dther states 'an^ in 4 he Model State Constitu­tion, as well as material relating, to the experience in other States with constitu­tional conventions aiid" revision commis­sions. The proposal for xevisiqn; supported by many civic groups throughout the state, was discussed at the Kansas Cori} ference on Government in the spring of

1949. Y ' • '., ' \ ; Kentucky. A proposal for a convention to

revise or amend the state's sixty year old constitution, having passed tvvo successive sessions^ the General Assembly, was sub­mitted to the electorate at the general election in November,. 1947. Although there had been an extensive campaigh; to _ob.taiii_public-support,—the—proposal—was defeated. The vote for was 136,441, with' 92,932 against; in order to carry,- the measure would have needed 153,779 af­firmative, votes and a niajority of "all votes. cast.^Earl^^Tn 1949'Governdr Clements ap-

, _ _ » ' • • : • • • - . . . ; . ^ - . . - . . • ^ •

^Kansas Lcgislativfr Council, Progress Report^ March Council Meeting, 1948, p. 1. N . '

^Louisvitle-Times-, Novernber 5, 1947, p.- 1; see. also .Reeves, J. E., "The Constitution Making ,Pxfi(;q^.,Z\K(!nlucAjy.< Lam \Joi}rnal,\.No\'^hKV-; 1947i- • pp". 63-80; and Th'e Constitution oj Kentucky; Sug­gestions'jor Revision (Bureau of Government Re­search, University of Kentucky, 1948)., .

.•-« \

\ I

• / • • r

84 THE BOOK OF THE STATES

r>

•, « "'

pointed a seven member Constitutional "Revision Comrnission;composed exclusive­ly of lawyers, to study the whole problem of constitutional revision. Tiie secretary is director of the Statutes Revision Commis­sion. Merobers receive no pay, 'but ar^^re-imbursed for actual expenses. The com­mission may employ necessary personnel and enlist the. aid of state.agencies; it may appoiHt sub-corrimittees, including mem­bers from outside the commission. ^ The grbiip, meeting monthl^is to make periodic reports to the goveri\or, a«d sub­mit a final report with findings^nd recom-i^'endations to the 1950 session ^f the General Assembly. The governor told the commission that he hoped it would be able to find improvements for the constitution that could be put into effect in the im­mediate future.

Louisiana. Earlier steps taken in an efibrt to revise the Louisiana Constitution, one of the newer state constitutions,, but-^till the longest, were reported iri the preceding issu' 'of-this~:Yolu.me^ In 1949, a further ex­tension of tim'e was requlested'fof'comple---tion of the project undertaken by the Louisiana Law Institute, jpublication of the proposed constitution, and of the re­search study being planned for Janua:ry 1, 1950.-• iV/arj'/flw /. In accordance with the con­

stitutional requirement of a periodic refer­endum on the subject of calling a constitu­tional convention, a vote will be taken in November, 1950; if favorable, the legisla­ture may be expected in 1951 to provide for election of delegates and the holding of a convdhtion. There a'ppears to be real i n - ' terest in the subject in the state*.Some of the county organizations of the Leagu6 of Women .'Voters have been studying the

. problem for some time, and the state

^Thi Book oj the States, 1945-46, p. 81; ,Kim-brough Owen, Director of Research for the Con­stitutional Revision Project, has published a num­ber of articles dealing with the. situation in the State: "The Need fgr Constitutional Revision in Louisiana," Louisiana Law Review, Novcrnber, 1947, pp. 1-104; "Constitution^ Revision in Louisiana': The Preliminary State," State Govemmeht, De­cember, 1947, pp. 303-306, 320; "Blazing the Constitution Trail," National Alunicipal Review,

.March, 1948, pp. 140-144;,"Constitutional Re-visiori by the Research Method: Louisiana Law Institute Sets Pattern for Others," ibid., May, 1948, pp.;267-270.

League has made this the rhajor'item on Jts agenda. The,Stale 'League of Munici­palities, recently revived, has sponsored a" constitutional aftiendment for ihunicipal home rule, and in.June, 1949, came out in active support of a general constitutional revision. . f

Michigan. Michigan has had an exciting time in its effort to revise its constitution, without, however, producing tangible re­sults, Under its constitutional mandate calling for a referendum on the question of holding a constitutional cohvrention every sixteen years, the state legislature in 1947 passed Act No. 139, providitig for such subrnission at the next general elec­tion, whiqjfi took place in November, 1948. The proposal had the strong support of both major party candidates for the gov-

, ernorship, and of many important civic organizations throughout the' state.^ A legal controversy developed immediately. after the; election as to whether or not the proposition had been approved by the voters. '

-^.-Byca-urianim'o.us decision late in January, 1949, the Michigan Supreme Coiu't ruled', that the proposal, had failed to. meet the constitutional requirement, in that it had not received a majority of the, total vote" cast at the election. The measure received a popular vote of 855,451 for and 799,196 against, but the favorable vote was'.much less than a majority of the niimber of votes cast for governor.

•The attorney general had contended that the election on the question of calling a convention was not a part, of the general election, but was merely contemporaneous with it. The court refused to accept this / argument., '

Minnesota. The preN'ious issue of this volume reported the establishment of th S Constitutional Commission of Minnesota. The Commission's, final report was pub­lished, on Octbber.l, 1948, and as directed

''ptc Ferguson, L e R o y C , Revising the Michigan Constitution (Michigan State College, East Lan­sing, 1948); Tharp, Claude R., "Michigan State Constitutional Revisioi^. Procedures," Michigan Governmental Digest, September 15, 19.48 (Bureau of Government, University of Michigan) ;-Wither-. spoon, John H., "Urges Bar Leadership in Ob-taifiing Revision of State Constitution," Detroit iaityrr, March; 1948, pp. 55-63.

' . " . • • • • . . ' ' • . . " . • . . X - -

• * - *

-p^

CONSTITUTIONS AND ELECTIONS 85

• > '

by law.* The organization, of the conimis-sion, of which Dr. Lloyd M. Short waS'

. chairman, and the procedures which it followed, are fully set forth in the report. Appointment of a steering committee of seven members was authorized at the first meeting, to prepare plans for the v 'ork of the .commission and to'act in the interim between meetings of the full commission. The chairman also was authorized to ap­point committees to study the various articles and sections of the constitution, and members were .invited to submit their' preferences for such assignments. Eventu­ally there Avere eight*such study groups (legislative, executive, judiciary, taxation and finance, education, local government, banks and corporations, and highways and airports), ranging from five to eight mem--

- bers; The chairmaij and at least two mem­bers of each committee were members of the commission; others were chosen from

. outside, often from among members of the 'legislature.

' After several months of hearings and work by the study groups, "the full Com­mittee began the: consideration of commit­tee reports in June, 1948. Five meetings, each of two days' duration and including several evening sessions, were devoted to this important task.,After presentation of a report by the committee chairman, each section thereof was considered and acted

. upon tentatively. In some instances, por-' tionspf the report were referred back to the

'committee.for further study. In a few cases individuals or representatives of interested groups requested or were granted a hear­ing upon committee proposials before the Commission. .At a later meeting of the Commission final-action.was taken upon the committee report as revised or amend-

: . e d . ' ' - . , , , ; • -• / - : . ; •

Prior to the final meeting of the com-, mission in September, 1948, its report con-' tiriues, a- "Committee on Style was ap-.i pointed by the Chairman to be responsible for the jinal dr^ft of the Commission's report! The Office of the Revisor of Si^t-utes undertook to review all of the commit­tee r,eports as a rrtended and adopted by the

'^The Book 'of the States, 1945-46, p. 82; and Re-port of the Constitutional Commission oj Alinnesota (St. Paul, 1948). The commission .was created by Laws of 1947, Chapter 614. . -'

Commission and to prepare drafts for the • consideration, of thiis corrimitte^. It was deemed besf to present the Commission's recommepidation by following the outline of the present Constitution, although in some instances it is proposed to alter ma- . terially the content and arrangement of . . the present Articles,"

At a final meeting of the members of the commission, held in the early part of * the 1949 legislative session, it w-as voted unaijimously to sponsor the introQliction of bills in both houses of the legislature proposing to submit to the voters in 1950 the question of calling a constitutional convention. This action .was the naore sig­nificant because a goodly nufnber.of the commission's legislative members had op­posed such a move .two years before. After the. commission had completed its work, they concluded that the only way^a thor­ough job. of constitutional revision could be done was by the convention process. There wei'e, of course, other contributing influ6|ices. . -

The bill submitting the question of call­ing a convention failed by eight votes of • getting the requii-ed two-thirds in the House of Representatives. In consequence, the matter never came i p for final vote in the-Senate. The only amendment intro­duced in the legislature to carry out any of the commission recommendations was one for a'•complete new" article pn local government. It incorporated virtually everything the commission had recom­mended in that area. This' proposal, spon-^ r e d by the State League of Municipalitfcs, had good legislative sponsorship in both ; houses, including legislative members of the commission, but consideration of it was held up pending the vote on the constitu- v. . tional convention issud. When the latter failed, it was too late to do anything about the amendment. As this is written it is too early to hazard a guess as to'what may ^ happen.in the future, but the movement for reyision has not been abandoned. There are significai^t indications of organized citizen support, both statewide and in the Twin Cities. • • New Hampshire. As stated in the pre^'ious

issue of this volume, a constitutional con­vention is no extraordinary event in New Hampshire, the only state in which amend-.

(r»» •

•.. ft

J

;r^

i/r^

.tr-

-x

86 ,r~^ THE BOOK OF. THE STATES

ments to the constitution may be proposed only by a.constitutional convention. Hold­ing jaf a convention was authorized by the voters at the general election in 1946. Pro­vision was made for it,, in accordance with the request of the governpr, during the legislative session of 1947. The" first session of the convention was held on May 12, 1948. This.convehtion, the thirteenth held under the constitution, finally approved six main propositions to be voted on by the people. at the general election of Novem­ber, 1948. :

The first of these (the only one to be approved by the electorate) authgrized the legislature to adjourn for periods not ex­ceeding five days, rather than two, as for­merly. The second proposed to e x t ^ d from seven to eight years the interval be­tween votes,on the question of a constitu­tional convention; the third, fourth, and fifth were for broadening^ the sources of revenue; and the last would have author­ized one representative in the legislature from each town, thereby still furthei: dis­torting representation from the cities.

North Carolina. The legislature of North: Carolina established a commission to study the needs for constitutional revision. The commission consists of five members of each house, fiye from the courts, five appointed by the governor, and ex-oflicio, the attor­ney general. The commission is strictly an

'advisory agency; a popular vote on the question of cailling a constitutional; con­vention is not expected before 1950.

Oklahoma. Activity of both public and JDrivate groups favoring the tiolding of a constitutional convention ha,s, continued. A committee of'the Statj?Legislative Coun­cil has followed thrpijgh with preparation of a significant series of studies of.important questions, prepared by. members of the political science faculties in the state's in­stitutions of higher learning. I^enate Resolu-tipn No. 24, passed in 1949, authorized the printing of these studies.

In the legislative session of 1949, other significant steps were taken. Senate Joint Resolution No. 11 was passed and signed by the governor, calling for a, referendum on a constitutional convention, to beheld at the general election in November, 1950, and in the event of an affirmative vote, for the meeting of the convention in Septem­

ber, 1951. Senate Joint Resolution No..29-was approved, providing for submission of a constitutional amendment, looking to-

. ward simplification of the amending proc­ess in the existing constitution.^ '

Tennessee. The unsuccessful effort to re­vise the constitution in 1946 and 1, 47 has not prevented prdgryessive forces from hope­fully continuing their efTorts for revision.^° The constitution under which Tennessee ' now functions was adopted in 1870 and'jhas never been amended, thus ^making it-the oldestunamended. constitution in the Uni­ted States. It. provides two methods for revision: amendment and convention. Since 1870 some tvventy effbj:ts to secure constitu­tional reform have e^lted in failure at the polls. The .1949 General Assembly took a step toward amendment by providing in Chapter 49 for holding, an election on the question of callirig a limited constitutional convention. On the following November 8, however, the con^vention was defeated at the polls by a comparatively narrow margin.

The convention was to have bticn limited to altering, reforjning or abolishing certain specified sections of the constitution relat­ing to apportionment of representa-tiVes and senators; the legislative quorum; c6ni-pehsation and expense of members of the . legislature; legislative power to classify property for taxation; the governor's term of office and his veto power;.the right of

' suffrage; amendments, .and conventions. The convention was also to alter, reform, or abolish Article XI , Section 9, so as to pro­vide home rule for municipalities and coun­ties and unil\5rm systems of city chapters.

^CITIZEN GROUPS PROMOTING REVISION MOVEMENTS . J

r • • * . . • ' •

. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that no campaign for constitutional revision can

. succeed in the absence of a^powerful and ^Sce Logan, Bill, "ConstitutionalTCevision for

Oklahoma," State Government, June, 1949, pp. . 155-156, 161-162. V ,.

"Sce'°Puckette, Charles M., "Tennessee Looks for Sisyphus,"- J^ew Tork Times Magazine, February 17, 1949, pp. 16, 44fr. In 1947, the Bureau of Publid Administration at the Urtiversity of Ten-, nessee published, in t>wo vplurnes, the papers pre­pared by.members of the social science group in the st ate for the information and assistance of the members of the Constitutibnal Comniission (Knox-^ ville, April and July, .1947). This cornmefit is. quoted from Tennessee Planner, June, 1949, p . ,H2.

.e

I

•?«»•

r^

C i CONSTITUTIONS AND ELECTIONS, 87

r> . well directed citizen movement to support it. In this connection, it is highly appropri­ate to point out that, in state after stat'e,-the League of Women Voters stands in the forefront of organizations studying, organ­izing, and guiding the movement for revi­sion. To assist the stateleagues, the national League prepared and issued in February, , 1949, an excellent brief memorandum:. The League and State Constitutional Revision. Th^ Council of State Governments and ' the Narfonal Municipal League, whose Model State Constitution points the way to signifi­cant advances in constitution making, continue to provide advice and assistance to groups and organizations, official and unofficial, interestedan constitutional revi- , sion. -

F/ont/a. Ii:t 1947 the president of the Florida Stat6 Bar Association, appointed a. committee to study the state constitution with a view to drafting a proposed new-, one. The association and the League of

/Wbmen Voters planned to conduct an edu-caitiopal campaign concerning the nee'd

. for a new constitution. This work had pro­gressed by fall of 1948 to the point that a semi-finai draft of i4 Proposed Constitution for Florida was printed (by the West Publish­ing Company) and circulated for criticism and suggestions. Thedraft, in spite of many Aveakness'eSj w'as a distinct improvement over the existing constitution. Fearing the usual fate of movements for general revi­sion, a plan was devised-for proceeding on the basis of piecemeal amendment if ^en-eralrevision was defeated. In order to over­come-'^n old provision that only one sub--ject may be contained in one amendment, . it was planned to urg^ adoption of an amendment, to the amending procedure, designed to permit complete revision of any article! in one amendment. Similarly, the Bar Association committee prepared and submitted to the legislature a rewrite of the judicial article, asking the legislature to submit this as a proposed amendment even if it. did not call a constitutional con­vention. The legislature did riot act,, but this did not mean that efforts for revision will be discontinueci..

Illinois. In late years the subject of con­stitutional revision has been an ever pres­ent concern in Illinois, which has grown from a rural state"bfiZjSOOjOOO people to a-

leading industrial one of almost 8,000,000 under a constitution ratified in 1870 and amended only seven times. Thelastamend-ment was adopted in 1908; nine amend­ments submitted since then have failed of approval, although.in every case but oni; the favorable vote exceeded the negative. The people voted for a constitutional con« vention in 1918^ but rejected the work of • that body four years later. A proposal for another convention, submitted in 1934, failed of adopltion. '

' III 1948, hope for revision of a constitu- v. tion that handicaps the state in m^ny ©fits functions appeared brighter th^n at any time since the campaign to modernize it began nearly sixty years ago. Both' major party candidates, for the governorship pledged their support of efforts in the 1949 General Assembly; to submit a constitu­tional convention referAidum to the voters in 1950. These plans had the support of the Illinois State Bar Association and the Chi­cago Bar Association, the State League.of Women .Voters, and many other*civic groups. Representative Berriice T. Van ,der Vries requested :the Legislative Coun-. cil to make a thorough study of the revision process in Illinois.^^ .

In the spring of 1949, however, the House of Representatives defeated by a slight margin the proposal to submit to popular vofe the calling of a convention to revisev the state constitution. The vote, was eighty-! nine in. favor and fifty-four against, but a two-thirds vote of 102 was required to carry. Governor Stevenson, a strong advo­cate qof the convention idea, announced that despite his preference for. comprehen­sive revision he. would urge his party to join with the minority in securing, ratifica-1:ion of the so-called gateway amendment in 1950. This prbposglj similar to otheis de­feated of; several occasion^ in the past, . would facilitate piecemeal revision- of the constitution. ' j

» {Continued on page 95}'_

^^Constitutional Revision in ///jnojj (Springfield^ December, 1947); see also "Illintjis Moves.Toward Constitutional Revision," National Municipal Re­view, July^, 1948, pp. 378-379; and Hodes, Barnet, "The Illinois Constitution and Home Rule for Chicago," University'of'Chicago Law Review,^'Au­tumn, 1947, pp. 78-86; and articles in the same journal by Sears, Kenneth G. •

t r -

• p

r

88 , ^. THE BOOK OF THE STATES

STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL (Xi-NVl'NJIONS*

. ' • ' . . ' . As of July, 1949 . ^ \^ ,

State:.

•' Effective . • . Esti-Dale and mated

Number Age of Length of Present Rank of {Number

Convert-. Consti- States of tions* • tution'^ by Age' Words)

Rank of

Stales by ,

Number of

Amend­ments

Amendment Procedure By Legislature

Length Adopted^ Proposal Ratification

. A l a b a m a i 1901 (48)

39 39.899 46 72 3/5 m e m b e r s elected " M a j o r i t y v o t e - o n a m e n d m e n t '

Arlzcfna . 1912 (31)

44 15.642 30 45 M a j o r i t y m e m b e r s M a j o r i t y v o l e o n elected • a m e n d m e n t

A r k a n s a s . 1874 (75)

20 . 20,205 37 5 5 ' M a j o r i t y m e i n b e e a c h ' h o u s e '

r s A l a j o t i t y v o t e o n ' / amendment ' ; • ;

C a l i f o r n i a . 1879 (70)

25 72.000 48 312 ' 2 / 3 members elected Major i .Uy v o t e o n amendn icn t

C o l o r a d o . IS76 22 23-.095 '73) • "

39 5f)' 2 / 3 menit^<:''-''!''''-'tc''i' M a j o r i t y v o t e on aiiiPridiiient •

Co'nnec t l cu t

D e l a w a r e i . . .\ ...

F l o r i d a . . . . : . . . ,

G e o r t i i a . , " . . . . . . . > • ' • •

I d a h o . . , . . ; . . . .

2 . .

5

5

13

1

1818 (131)

1897) . ^52)

1887 ' (62) ,

1945 (4)

1890 (59).

4

38

26

'47

.31

6,741

r

13.409

• . 14,988

. 25,000

13.492

• 3

18

24

42

19

45 Major i ty of House , • ' . R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s ;

n e x t A s s e m b l y , . . 2 / 3 each Houwe

16 2 /3 member s elected. 2 successive sess.

82 3 /5 member s elected.

42 r^ ' Ik 2 / 3 memfcers elected

51' 2 /3 of all members

M a j o r i t y of v o t e r s , in town meet ing

Xone

M a j o r i t y v o t e on a m e n d m e n t .

M a j o r i t y v o t e on ' a m e n d m e n t

N la jo r i t y • v o t e on amc. ' idment ' '

rn-s

Prepared by W. Brooke Graves, Senior Specialist in American-Government and Public Vvdministration, I.ei;islativc Reference Service. Library of ConKresa; Irving J. Zipin, member of the Philadelphia Bar; and Samuel H;Stil l , niember of the South Caroli­na Bay, presently with Legislative Reference ^ ' fvice. Library of Congress.

sentatives. See In re ConstilultonUl Convention S.S R.I. ^(t (19JS). In Indiana, see ficnnfU V. f ac t ion . I86f lnd . 533, 116 N .E . 92. • .

.' In some states w^cre a aiiiKlc amendment amends more than' . one section of the constitution it may or may not be counted as more tlian a single amendment. Tliis is particularly true of California.

, * No more than three .amendment's may be submitted at a t i m e . . • •

•• In Arkansas, /Jr i i r tAo««v. ;/»7/. 167 Ark; 513. (1925) and Combs V, Grey (1926) held that only a majority vote on the question was required. In Idaho, a similar. decision" was handed down in Greenv. S. lid. of Canvassers (1896) S Id. 130, 47 Pac. 259. , <

•' Lctjislature may not.propose more than six amendments at " the same session. I . . .

i Although it is the usiial pi-acticc to. submit revisions of con­stitutions to the voters for their approval, this footnote indicates those instances in which this practice was not followed, e.g., constitutions promulgated or adopted by the state C(mvention.

^ Thbi^iyjrft docs not include amendments of a local nature, 8ucli'"''anIW4jSents not i>econiing a part of the constitution unless theyjr^ceive both a majority of those voting in the state as a whole and also a majority of those voting in the

. particular subdivision or subdivisions affected. Local amend­ments to the constitution of. 1877 wcie continueil in cllect though not incorporated in the constitution of 1945.

' These provisions Svhich apply to constitutional as 'well as legislative proposals are presently, inoperative since the legislatui-e has not enacted supporting legislation.

Kor dates of convehtionit and. action taken at 'cach, see The Hook of the Stales. 1941-1942. pp. 48-55. and subsedpent vol­umes. Only five conventions should be listed (or Illinois, the last 1919 to 1922. In Nevada, a consti'tution proi)<)sod by an

. 1863 convcrition was rejected. Constitutional conventions (or the pifrpose' of proposing amendments were held in New Hampahlrein 19J0, 1938, 1941 and 1948. A single amendment to VIrginia'8 constitution wasefTectcd by a convention on May. 2, 1945. In 1945 the voters of Georgia and Missouri .ratified conatltutlona adopted by conventions In 1944. New Jersey's convention in 1947 led to adoption of a new constitution. cITec-tive January 1,1948. The legislature harf'by statu;.e instructed the Loiiisiaiia Law Insti tute to prepare a draft or project of a constitution for the state of Louisiana, to be submitted to it in January. 1950, • The number in parentheses under the year indicates the age in years of. the present constitution, or the length of time since^the last complete revision. . ,, The rank by age begins with the.oldeat constitution and ends with the most recent. New Jersey.The present Georgia consti­tution has been considered both.>as the constitution of 187 7 and 1945. The constitutions of North ;ind South Dakota were ratified and became effectiveon the same days. A complete list of Amendments rati|^e(^, rejected, and pending, as well as s ta tutes of a miscellaneous nature retatirtg to state couatitutions enacted during a.particular bicnnium are listed ill Stale Law Index, issued biennially by the Library, of Con-

f reaa. Legislative Reference Service, State Law Section, n the remaiiiing 12 states wh ich make no provision for re­

vision or amendment by constitutional convention, it ap- ' pears that such conventions have been held permissible as an inherent.right of the people ,actin2 through elected repre-

)

r~-

'4 .i-r-

• CONSTITUTION'S AND ELECTIONS 89

STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS • . —rContinued • .

\

Amendmn By In

Size pf Petition

- o;

15% of total . v o t e r s for governor at last election

iO% of legal v o t e r s for governor at last election, i n c l u d i n g

• .5% in each of 15 coun-

'. ties

8% of t o t a l v o t e r s for governor at last general election

8%. of. l ega l v o t e r s for secretary "of state at last general elec­tion •

it Procedure. . •itiative ^ ' ,

Referendum Vole

Majority vote on a m e n d ­ment

Majority' vote on a m e n d ­ment

Majority yote on am.end-ment ^

- Majority 'vcfte' o n ' a m e n d ­ment

Procedure for Calling a Convention*

A • •

r t Vote.in Referendum '.

Legislature, Vote

Majoritytnem- Majority yot-bers elected • ing at elec­

tion

Majority vote Majority vote on question

I . . . . • . . • - .

2/3 members Majority vote , elected on question

* " ' • * • ' .

2/3 merhbers Majority vote elected . on question

Popular Ratification (Convention Proposals)

No provision

Majority vote . on proposals

Majority vote cast a t spe­cial elettioii

Majority- vote , a t . e l e c t i o n

which may be S p e c i a l election

Citation

. XVII I . 284. . . 286

XXI , 1,2 • IV. 1 (2)

X ] X . 22 Amdt. 'VII

^

XVII I , 1,2 . . . IV. 1 .

X I X . 2. 1 V, 1

._'State

. . . . . vi^labama

.'.Arizona

. . . . .California

. . . . ; . . C o l o r a d o

As legislature p r o v i d e d ' ,

4 y

X I

• ^ V I . 1. 2 ' 2 / 3 m e m b e r s Major i ty v o t e No provision elected on ques t ion

••" • 1 • • • • • . . • '

.2/3 all mem- Major i ty v o t e N o provision X V ' I I , 1. 2 bera on quest ion ; . .

, ./f. 2 / 3 a l l m e m - N o referendum. N o provision bers

X I I I . 1. 1. 2

par .

M a j o r i t y v o t - 2 / 3 m e m b e r s . M a j o r i t y o f " A d o p t e d b y X X . ' l . 3 ing a t g e n - elected electors v o t - p e o p l e " I I I . 1 .eral elect ion ing in nex t •^'.

. " : , • • . general elec-i •" • . t i o n -

. C o n n e c t i c u t

i

. . . .Delaware

. . . . . . Flor4da

. . , . .Georgia

. . . . . . . .Idaho

." No more than one amendment inay l)e submitted by same legislative st-ssiob, nor may the same article be amended

. more often than once in four years. ' ° No new amendments may be submitted while an amendment . is awaiting i ts second legislative action or action of the

electors. The supreme court has ruled (/n re Todd, 208 Ind. 168) tha t if more votes are cast for than against an amend­ment submitted to the voters, it is ratified even though the total vote cast in favor of t he amendment is less than a majority of the total number of votes cast a t the election a t which the amendment was voted on. .

° No more than two amendments may be submitted a t a time; no amendment may be resubmitted within five years,

•p Proposal must be introduced within first thirty days, of session. . " ,

1 A rearrangement of 'the constitution was made by inserting amendments a t . appropriate places; the original constitu- '

, .tion, as amended and rearranged, is still in force. In Maine (1876) and Vermont (1913) the.rearrangement was acconir plishcd by the.supreme coiiTt of the s ta te ; in Massachusetts (1919). by convention.

f Description on ballot made by attorney general with vote in general court indicated.

• One of these was not ta convention, b.Mt a special constitu­tional commission appointed by the governor, under authori ty of an act of the legislature.

. ' P r o p o s a l s must be devoid o f p a r t y desigiiations. " Legislature is empowered to fix a smaller percentage. The

percentage actually prescribed in Missouri 13 5'. ^ Minimum vote on amendment . 35 per cent total cast. " Rejected amendments may 'not be consioered again until,

after three years . Minimum vote necessary. 35 per cent of total vote cast. ~ '

^' This does not mean merely a majorityof thoseactually.voting thereon; Slate ex ret. Blair v. Brooks, 17 Wyo. 344.

y Rejected amendments may no t be coutldered again until the third general election thereafter .

• • Amendments dealing with franchise and education mUst be proposedby a % vote of legislature and ratified by % vote

I of electorate, and % vote in each county. ^ ' »» In spite of the constitutional convention of 1938, the New

'Vork Constitution has been Considered as the Constitution of 1894, as amended.' Only 6 of the '9 proposals submitted by, the Convention of 1938 (the first oi^omnibus proposal, contained 49 amendments) were approved by the voters, leaving in force without ' modification numerous articleB of the earlier instrument. Attorney general first required ^ i th in

. 3 0 days to render opinion regarding ellect of proix)sals on provision Of constitution.

»•' The North Carolina convention of 1876 used.the constitu-. tion of 1868 as a bacis bu t made niimeruus amendments to it .

The present cohstjtutiun has been considered both as the constitution of 1868 and 187(}. The North Carolina amend­ments or constitution were ratified in November, 1876, and took effect on January 1, 1877. See fio'ar/ v. y6n«, '116 N . C. 570. ; w • > -

»= The legislature, by. two-thirds vote, may require a special election on ttmehdments. Any Initiative measure rejected by the voters cannot be presented again, within three years, unless by vote of 25 per cent or more of the voters.

• d So-called • Limited (constitutional Convention held In 1944 proposed and submitted amendment providing for service­men's vote, later approved a t polls.-

* • I.egi3lature. may not propose amendments more often than once in six years. ,

• ' S ince 1910. amendments m a y b e submitted only at 10-year internals. Supreme Cour t may rearrange and renumber, amendments. ' '

»* Includes one amendment through revision by a constitution­al convention on May 2. 1945.

• ' ' { 197 has been construed to authorize the General Assembly . to submit to thoTvoters the question of calling a restricted convention. Staples v. Citmer, 183 Va. 613, 33 S. E. (2d) 49 (1945). - ^

'.. •. h

* • ; • • V

S""-^

/-

90 • THE BOOK OF THE STATES ,

STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL CdkvENTIONS " —Continued

State

Effective Esti-Date and . mated Rank Number _

Number Age of Length of -of of Present Rank of {Number States Amend-

Conven- Consti- States of . by • ments tions* tution*'. by Age' Words) Length Adopted^ ^

Amendmfnt Procedure By Legislature

• ^ •

Prtposal •Ratification'

lUinoU.

I n d i a n a . . . ,

« I o w a . .

1870 (79)

1851 (98)

1857 (92)

17 13.838 20

9 7,816 4

• ' * • ' .

10 7.997. 5 '

••'• ' • " 7 . •

2/3 members elected" lAIajority- voting at next \election of members of gen­eral assembly

17

17

Majori ty^m embers elected, 2 succes­sive sess."

Ma jo r i t y meinbers .^.elected.' 2 siicces-.

sive sess.

Majority of-electors -of the state"

Majority vote amendment

on

Kansas 1861 13 8,052 (88)

40' 2/3 members elected* Major i ty* v o t e on' 1 . amendment

K e n t u c k y . , ^ . 1891 i 34, . 16,545 (58)

32 8 3/5memberS'elected<' M a j o r i t y v o t e on amendment

L o u i s i a n a . . . , . , . . ; . .

M a i n e . . . . . . . . . .

M a r y l a n d . . .

. ". . . . • 1. 1 '

Massachusetts. 1

. 10».

. 1

• • • ' • ' * •

s

1921 i (28)

1820i (129)

1867 ( 8 2 ) ; i

' 17800 (169)

4 5 '

•is

1

63,179

10,302

22,143

. 16,473

47 •. '287 2/3 members elected P

9- . 64 2/3 both houses-.'. '

38 H>' 56' 3/5 members elected

31 - 7 9 Major i ty members elected. 2 shcces-sive sesa. ' ,

M a j o r i t y v o t e on • amendment

6

M a j o r i t y v o t e - o n amendment

M a j o r i t y v o l e oh amendment •

M a j o r i t y v o t e on amendment

• > <

Michigan

M i s s i s s i p p i . . . . . . .

Missouri* . . . . ,•..•.

5«

1

. . . 7 -

6 •

1909 (40),

• 1858 (91)

lS90i . (59)

1945 4 (4)

42.

11 r '

33

-. 46

13.211

15,389 ;

15.302

, 30,000

"16

28 :

. 27

43 • I

46

66

. 3 2

70

2/3 meinbers elected

Majority both houses

2 / 3 e a c l i h o u s e , passed 3. several days

Majo r i ty members elected .

M a j o r i t y - v o t e on amendnrtent

Majority voting at election

Majority yets cast

• M a j o r i t y v o l e on amendment' , '

«~-

Montana.

Nebraska.

1

4

18.S9 (60)

1875 (74)

29 17,409 '33

21 ' 11,677 12

23' 2/3meniber3elected« M a j o r i t y v o t e ' o n . -/ • _ • amendment

60 3/5rheiiiber3eIected' M a j o r i t y v o t e an amendment»

'!^

, 6 ^

STATE CONSTITUTIONS

CONSTITUTIONS AND ELECTIONS

Amendment' Procedure By Initiative

Site of Petition

.Referendum Vole

Vot> Legist

91 AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS

—Continued

Procedure for Cdlling .0 Convention*

6^

in i^ur^e

Referendum Vole

Popular Ratijftcatioii {Convention Proposals)

- f Citation State

2/3 eacp house Majority vot- Majority vote XIV. 2, 1 ' irig at next at s p e c i a l .

• gen. election • election

. . . . . . Illinois

XVI. 1 . Indiana

Questioi man­datory every 10 yoirs be­ginning 1870; leg. mdy pro­vide fci- aub-

•.- m i s s i o n of question

2 / 3 merribera elected t

Majority nem-bers elected, 2 succei sive sessions

Majority vot-• ing o n t H e

"V question

Majority vot- . ing at next gen. election

Majority vote on question: at least ,-Ji q u a l i f i e d v o t e r s a t last election

No provision . X, f, 3 . . . . Iowa

« " - .

No provision . XIV, 1.2

No provision ' Sec. 256, 258

. Kansas

2/3bothhojse8 . . . . ' tr-

No provision

XXI , r

X, 2 . IV Pt. 3rd 15

Question man­datory every 20 years (be­ginning 1P3D

Atleast25,000 30% of total voters; vote v o t e r s a t

-: of }i of. all ' election and •jnemberajj m a j o r i t y "successive v o t e o n a - , j o i n t sea- mendment sionsof.Gen. Ct.... , •

10% legal vot- "Majority »vote era for gov- on a m e n d -ernor at last ment election

16 years ginning

Majority vot-. Majority Vote XIV. I. 2 ing dfTllec. • on. proposals

. : , . . / . . . . . . . XLVIII, 1-5

. .Kentucky

Louisiana

. ^ . . . . . . . .Maine

. . Maryland

.Massachusetts

Question mim- Majority yot- -Majority vote XVII, 1. 2,.4 dato^efijry • ingatelec . • • on proposals .

j e - • - . •• • • ' • ' • ,

, ...Mlcliiftan

15 26

2/3''memb!rs Majority vot- No provision XIV, 1,2 elected ing at elec.

:J{V. (273)

•Not more than 8% l e g a l v o t e r s a t •last electiop of justice of Sup. Ct. in each of at l e a s t 2 / 3 Gong, dist.o

Majority vote pn am.end-me^t

Question datory ev 20 years!

Majority vote on question

Majorit on pri

'ote osals

<XII,l-3(c) III; 49-53

.Mihnesota

.Missisalppi

.f

. . .Missouri

10%voter8for governor at I

(last election; electors in­cluding 5% of each of

. 2/5 of coun­ties* '

Majority vote. . oh a m e n d ­

ment"

2 / 3 menJbera Majority vote Majority vote XIX, 9.8 elected.) • on question • at elections , ,-

3 / 5 members .Majority vot- Majority vote XVI; 1, 2 elected! . ing at elec. on proposals .111,2,4

. . Montana

I. .; .Nebraska

92 THE BOOK OF THE STATES

STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS , —^Continued ,.

|- ^^ective Esti-Utile and . moled. Rank Number

\ ' Number Age of. ^Length -of of I of Presenl Rank of {Number. States Amend-

Conven- Consti- -States . of , by . menls r '\ Slate lions'! 1'ulion^ by Age" Words) Length Adopted'^

Nevada. . . 2

New H a m p s h i r e . . . . . 17»

New Jersey. . . ' . 4»

New ]^^zIco 1

New York . . , . . . ; 8

Amendmenl'Procedure • By Legislature

Proposal Ratification..

.1864 (85)

1784 (165)

1948

1912 (37)

1894»» (55)

14/

• • 2

'*8,

43

35

12,662

10,900

12,500

IS, 15a

19.036

IS

11

13

26

35

3 4 ' ,Major i ty members M a j o r i t y v o t e on J elected 2 succes- amendment . .

eive s'ess, . ' '\

92

None 3/5 members of both M a j o r i t y v o t e on houses; or ma- amendment^ : .

" ' j o r i t y members elected, 2 succes- -i . • give sess. '

32' Major i ty meiirbers M a j o r i t y v o t e on - elected amendment'

119 Major i ty members M a j o r i t y y o t e on elected, 2 succes-, amendment s ive se s s . "

North Carolina. .

North D a k o t a . . .

O h i o , . . . .

. . . . .6

1

. . . 4

. 1876 »b (73), ,

1889 (60)

1851,--(98)

24

:27-28«

8

8,861

17,606

•15,417

>• s

34 • f »

29

28 3/5 each house Majority voting a t election

46' Major i ty members M a j o r i t y v o t e on . • elected . amendment

7i 3/5.members elected M a j o r i t y v o t e o'n aniendment

Oklahoma

• . ^ • .

1907 41 35,630 .45 .57 Major i ty members Majority voting at elected election*"

"* » . •0*1.

Oregon. 1859 (90)

12 12,623 14 111' Major i ty members M a j o r i t y v o t e on elected amendment

^ . ;Pennay lvan ia . . . . . . . . . • • • ' - • • ' •

Rhode I s l a n d . . . . . . . .

South Carolina

5* itS74 , 19 15,092 25 • V (75)

S»i 1843 6 5.824 2 (106) :

7 18951 36 30,063 44 (54)

40 Major i ty members elected, 2 succes­sive sess.

« 23 Major i ty members elected. 2 succes­sive sess.

192 2/3 members elected

f/-

South D a k o t a . . . . ;

Texas*''..

U t a h . .

. . " 1

. . 5

1

1889 (60).

1870 (79)

18;76 (73)

1896 (5,3)

27-28» 19.305

16 . 8.190

23 23.671

37 13,261

36

• 7 .

41

17

.51

Noi

104

26

Major i ty i^iembers elected

• Major i ty members elected; 2/3 mem­bers elected suc-ce&iing sess.

2/3 members elected

2/3 members elected •

Iillajority v o t e on amendments

3/5 voters on amend­m e n t , in t o w n meetings '

Maj,vote'on amend­ment; ratification by majority next Gen. Assem.

M a j o r i t y v o t e on amendment

Majority of vote cast for members of legislature " . " ^

M a j o r i t y Vote on amendment

M a j o r i t y v o t e o n ' amendment

ff^

CONSTITUTIONS AND ELECTIONS 93

STATE' CONSTITUTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS —Continued

N.

State 6^

.Nevada

. Plijmr.HampsHre

New Jersey

.New Mexico

. . .New York

•» . . lb. • . . . .

Amendment Procedure ' " Procedure for By Initiative Calling a Convention* Popular ^-. .

^ *• '•—'—^ , '^ '• ^ • ^ Ratification , g, "~ Siie'of Referendum Vote in Referendum • {Convention "

Petition Vote Legislature Vote " Proposals) Citation • '. • .

10%voter3f6r Majority vol- 2/3 members Majority vol- No provision XVI, 1, 2 - ' justice of ing at elec. elected ers at elec. XIX, 1-3

Sup. ,Ct. at • , •' last elec. , • . *

. " . . . , . " . . . ; Question man- M a j . vo l . in 2/3vot.inann. Pt. 11, 99-100 dplory,every town meet- town meet-

. 7 yrs. ' ings ings

. . . . . : . . : . . . . . . , . . . : . . . . . , . IX

. . . . . . ; . . . . . ' . . . . . ' . . 2/3 members Maj. vole on "Ratified by XIX, 1, 2 .,, . elected question : people"

.:',:' ............. Maj. of legis- Majority vote Majority votie XIX, f, 2 lature, Ques- on question on projposals

• ,• t ibn manda- . fr" . -, lory every . •. .

20 years be- • ^ ginning in , ' 1957. • •

. . . ' . . . . ; . . . . . . ; . . 2/3 members Majority vol- No provision XIII, 2, 1 elected ing at elec.

20,000 of elec- Maj. vole on . . * Sec. 202 tors. amend. ^ . (.Amdt. 28)

' ' • . • . " • . . • • » • ' • . •

10% of elec- Maiorily vole 2/3 members Majority vole Majority vote XVI, 1, 2 -lorsforgov. "oV.amend- e l e c t e d . on question oh proposals II, la las t e lec . ment Q u e s t i o n ' incl. 5% in • mandatory . '

'eachof>i of every 20 yrs. . -'~ " • ihecounlies b e g i n n i n g .

, 1932 . . .

15% legal vot- Majoritj' vol- Majority vote Majority vote Mafority vole XXIV. 1, 2 ers in last • ing at elec- of legisla- • on question on proppsals V, 1-3 gen. sta.te • lion v lure. Ques-. . .' . • ^ elec. for of-. tibn manda- " • ' fipe receiv-• t.ory every ,( ^ \ ing highest . 2 0 years be- .. voles*" • ginning 1907

Nolmorethan Majority vole Majori ty ' of Majority vote No provision XVII, 1 8% l ega l on amend- legislalureor on question IV, 1 v o t e r s in ment • initiative pe- • . Jast election . tition of 8% , ^ . •. ' • forjusliceof of legal vot-Sup. Ct." ers • \

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . XVIII,I

• ' ' . ' • • . . . • . • • * ' ' - . . ' . ' • • • ' • • ' • • • . • • . ' • ' • • '

. . . . . . . . ; . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . ; . XIII .

^

.North Carolina

. .North Dakota

Ohio

.Oklahoma

.Oregon

.Pennsylvania 1

.Rhode Island

2/3 members elected^

2/3 members Pi elected

Majority n^em-

Majorily vot­ing at elec-_ Ijon

Majority vot­ing at elec-

• lion Majority vol-

No provision

No provision

No provision

xyi.1.3 •.

XXIII, 1, 2

XI, 3

. . .South.Carolina

. . . . . South Dalcota

bers elected ing on ques­t ion

XVII. 1 .Texas

2/3 members Majority vol- Majority vote XXIII. 1,2 elected ing at next at next-gen- • ': k^

gen. elec. eral election • ,§

. . . . . . U t a h

• ^ . • ' • ' • , ' /

. • - . • • ' / • • • . • • • • ' • • . / • • . • • • • . . : . • • * . '

94 THE BOOK OF THE STATES / i r . I r . • • • • • • - v j

.; SJAXE CONSTITUTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS ' " -/Continued \

•'•-,..}'•' ." • •. Effective Esli- ,• . Date and mated Rank Number

. • J -' . Number ' Age of • \' 'Length of* of' '• . Amendment Procedure . ' . of Present Rank of (Number States Amend- By Legislature

••. ^ '• • ' .':Conven- Consti- States of by menls ,—'• — :—:—f '• r ^ V • State. . lions* tution^ byAge^ Words)' 'Length Adopted'^ Proposal Ratification

\ V e r m o n t . . . . : .11 ' 1793i'<> 3 ' .5,759 ' l 40 2/3 vote Senate, ma- M a j o r i t y freemen (156). jority Hquse; ma- voting on amende

.1 . / ' •• j or i ty members ment . . elected succeeding

' • . . ' . ' • - • • . . s e s 3 . » ' • . " • -

Virginia 9« 1902i /40 23,101 40 87»« Majority members Majority vote on . . , , •• I (47) ./ , elected,.-.2 succes- amendment'

. 1 ,'., •'..•!•' .'.sivesess. , , • - . • • •

' Wasbingtoa , . ; , . 1 1889 30 14.650 22 19 2/3 members elected M a j o r i t y v o t e on ',, . '., . . . ' (66)'. -amendment

V Weat Virginia. 2 1872 18 14,928 23 24 2/3 members elected M a j o r i t y v o t e on ,. ' " " (77) • • amendment

/ ^ WUcon8ln.*X 1 1848 ' 7 10.517 10 51 Majority members M a j o r i t y v o t e on * , (101) elected. 2 succes- amendment

• • . , . . ' •' • sive sess. . c j • • • , ^ . • • . . < - • . • • . • . • . • " ' . . . • • • . . • . • - •

Wyoming . . . . ' ' '.. ,1' , 1 8 9 0 -32' 14.603 . 2 1 , 1 3 2/3 of all members . Majority of electors / ' (59) . .' ^ .* I a t n e x t .genera l

' . , f- election*

o

STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND, CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS —Conclu(ie(i . .•

. • • • ; • '

- _ _ _ . . . - - — • ; . ^ . _ _ _ - _

• Amendment-Procedure Procedure for % By Initiative ^ Calling a Convention* Popular

' i , r * • : > I—'• ; — ' • — r ' ^ : =rS .Ratification Site of , Referendum „ Vole^in • Referendum . {.Convention

State' Petition Vote Legislature Vote Proposals) -. Citation _ . : .^— ; — ; p,„j; — : - : : — — • . . :

Vermont ••.• •••• : . . . . . . , . . . . - ; . . . 11.68

'\

Virginia. Maijority tnem- Majority vote No provision XV,196.1.97»'' bers elected . • on question .

Washington. 2 / 3 members Majority vot- "Adopted by XXIIt, 1. 2 ' , elected ; ingatelec. people"

West.Virginia.. i .T , . . . . . . , . , ; . Majoritymem- M a j . v o t . at "Ratif ied by XIV..2j 1 . ' bers elected elec. which " voters" '

. . ' '';~ • • canbeaspec. • " • ' . - ' • • e l e c . • ; . ' ' . '

Wijjconsin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M a j o r i t y of Majority vote No provision XII, 1. 2 .. ' . • legislature: ^ on question ' • .

• • • . / • ' . • ' 1 • ' ^ • - . • •

Wyoining .),..,.• ; . . 2 /3 members Majority vot- "Adopted by .XX, 1, 3 • • , . ' • . elected i . ing" at next people"-

. ^' • .' ' g e n ^ l elec- " •. . . . ' • • t i o n • • . • • . • • • \ '

\&^-

\

9!M 'C -

/

/ \

•': CONSTITUTIONS AND ELECTIONS 95

Ohio. Pursuant to an article added to the Ohio constitution in 1912, a vote will be taken in 1952 on whether there should be a constitutional conventiori. Looking to­ward this referendum, the Social Science Section of the Ohio College Association set up a Committee on the Revision of the Ohio State Constitution. .This committee, after an extensive canvass of opinion, sub-jnitted its report in April,. 1,9,48. After dis­cussing many specific recommendations, the committee concludes: "So many import­ant changes are required that only through a constitutional convention are we lik6ly t5 secure adequate consideration of all of them. We therefore recommend to. you, as members of the Soaal Science Section of the Ohio College Association, that you support the call for such a convention and that you take every opportunity'to inform the; public of the defects and, short­comings of our present constitution." Thus from public and private sources'alike come evidences of suppoirt for revision. -'

South Caro/ma. The Bureau of Public Administration' at the University of South Carolina'during 1947 and 1948 gave some attention to problems of constitutional re­vision, in response to what it reported'as "considerable interest" throughout the

's tate "in the possible revision or rewrifing of the state constitution." In 1948 it re­ported that meiasures were pending in the legislature to create a corjnnission to study the need for constitutional changes^and to submit the question of a ponstitutional con-

verttion to the people. No action, however, ' was taken on them.^2 ,

Texas. Early in 1949 a group of Texas citizens set up a Citizens Committee on the Constitution to consider the need for revi­sion tjf the state constitution. The commit-

td^formally recommended to-the governor • and legislature the creation of an interim

constitutional review conimissibn; to study the constitution of 1876 and recommend needed changes. T h e proposal contemr plated a commission of twenty-four official and citizen mernbers, included an appro­priation o^75,000 for necessary staff arid expenses, arid stipulated that the commis-sion should report prior to the convening of the 52nd legislatu^-e in January, 1951. A resolution to create* such a commission was introduced; after a hearing at v/hich the citizens committee was ably represented, the measure was reported out in the House. It met with stiff opposition on the floor and was recommitted. At the time of writing rio decision had been made regarding future action, but it may be expected that efforts for revision will continue.

Wisconsin. A convention for revision of the Wisconsin constitution was advocated by the League of Women Voters, the City of Milwaukee, the Democratic Party, the American Veterians' Committee, the' Con­gress of Industrial Organizatioris, arid the American Federation of Labor. Neverthe-lessj legislative authorization for such a; body was overwhelmingly defeated in the ' state assembly. Advocates of a conventiori. had urged the, ne%d for reappOrtionrnent, a short ballot, and state participatiori in the internal improvement program.

', :^See Christian L. Larsen ahd.G. G. William­son, A:Comparative Analysis of the Constitution of South Caro/wfli--and Christian L. Larsen, "arid Conrad Cowan-, South Carolina State Constitution Amendment Procedures (both, Bureau of Public Ad-, ministration, University of South Carolina,-1947 and 1948, respectively). The former is a com­parison of the provisions of the South Carolina. Constitution with those of the Model State Con­stitution and with those of other'stiates.

; •

r->

• ? - . :

.f.

-.o*%-

.r : r r

%

Elections

"'ej*^

•f. • # • • .

BALLOT LEGISLATION, 1947-49*

r^

»

B\LLOT LEGISLATION d u r i n g 1947-1949 covered numerous topics,' such as b^lo t . forms and . marking, voting

for presidential electors, absentee <^odng, JDarty primaries, and authorization and ex­tension of the use p( voting machines.,

' • MARK4NG'BALIOTS •• i '

Arkansas (1949,/ chap. 353) changed fre«n marking by scratching out what is not desired to the use of X in the square appropriate for what is desired. This leaves Texas the only state having the Australian ballot which still employs the scra:tch (or lipifig-put device) for voting; the scratch may be used on party papers (non-Austfalian ballot) in South Carolina.

.Idaho (1949, chap. 141) allowed the voter to mark X for his favored, party coliimn and^ also to vote ,>vith an. X for individual candidates iii^ther columns. Mississippi (1948, chap. 306) allowed the voter to mark the ballot with a y , ais an optional

•method to the use of X or the cross mark, "provided that he or she consistently votes the ballot in that mariner." Kansas (1949, chap, 254) provided that>no, name printed on the ballpt could be written elsewhere, thus constituting a peculiar liniltation on

K

.^Prepared by Spencer D; Albright, University of Richmond, Virginia. A brief suf vey of 1947 laws was included in" the preceding isSue of TAir Bookof the States, along with an analysis of 1945-46 legislaffSii. The present sttidy includes some 1947 and 19,48 material arid slightly more than half the isession faws for 1949, since many^si^ipn laws were pot available at the. time i'of writings - ,

the Write-in privilege: It further provided 'that "the name of each candidate shall he printed on the ballot once and no more,"

. except, when a candidate runs for the un-, expired term and the next regular term of

^he same office. Arkansas (1949) abolished the duplicate

ballot which since 1935 has been a uniqur >v:oting procedure. In-the future the Ar­

kansas voter will not be required to sign his ballot. .This state joins others which employ the numbered stub (Acts,, 1949, chap. 353), In Massachusetts (.Acts aind Resolves, 1948, chap. 272).the name of an incumbent seeking re-election shall be under the designation of the otTice,sought and the names of all other candidates for the same offiee shall.follow;in alphabetical order. •, ' ' ,

.VOTING MACHINES , -

In l949, Arkansas (Act 484) authorized the use of voting machines. Cities of Ar-kahsas did not invest in voting machint^s' under a previous statute—in cffeet from 1927 to 1937. West V'irginia authorized the use of voting machines (1949)! Georgia in 1949 extended the u.se of voting ma­chines to additional counties. After re­vising its voting machine law in 1947 (chap.-247) Kansas in 1949 (chap. 257), repealed the authorization of "Automatic Ballots or Voting Machines." The Qhio* General Assembly in July, 1949, approved a measure relative to the acquisition of voting machines for Cuyahoga County, which includes Clevelarid.

• 9 6 • • • ' • ' • - ' . " • • - • . •:. • » • • ; •• \

K. •.

-,-s*<.

COmriTUTIONS AND ELECTIONS 9?

" ' .ABSENT VOTING '.

Tennessee (1949, chap. 164) revised the • procedure of casting and counting absentee \''btes. The absentee voting tally must be added to the returns token from the voting machines. In the eventuality of an ab­sentee v6ter dying between the time of voting and the date of »the election (the precise time being the opening of the polls) then his ballot shall not be opened or cast; but if the fact of his demise shall not be known until after the tallying then ,"(he casting of the ballot of the. deceased voter shall not invalidate the election or the primary election." Utah (1949, chaps. 35 and 36) dealt with absentee registration and votingT^--Virginia (1948, chap. 377) modified absent voting procedures relat­ing to certification and the duties of reg­istrars. '

In 1947 'several states repealed their wartime absent voting laws for persons in,

.or serving with, the armed forces; among these were Arizona, lo^va, and Pennsyl-. variia, followed in 1948 by South Carolina (No. 711) • Among states which revised absent voting laws were the following: (a)

wi th respect to affidavits—Massachusetts (1947, chaps. 477 and 531), Nevada (1947,: chap. 59); (b) applying for absentee bal­lots, marking, and returning—Louisiana (1947, Nos. 275" and 435), Michigan (1947, No. 353)", Nebraska (1947, chap. 116), New York (1947, chap. 512, and 1948, chap. 689), N9rth Dakota (1947, chap. 171), Oregon (1947, chap. 59.0);" (c) re­cording absentee votes on voting machine —Michigan (1947, No. 97). The Dela­ware legislature in 1947 ratified a constitu­tional amendment—proposed by the pre-c?.^ing, legislature, according to the Dela­ware amending procedure—dealing with absentee registration and voting. Dela­ware then enacted a law under such au-tho'rization (chap. 181). Rhode Island dealt with absent voting in 1947 (chap. 1820) and in 1948 (No. 2).

GEORGIA COUNTY UNITA'OTE

The Georgia General Assembly in 1949 proposed a constitutional amendment to be submitted to the voters at the general eicctiori in 1950, providing for the county unit basis (used for many yearsfor Georgia

primaries) to be applied to the general election for United States senators and elecjtiye state officers. "The county unit vote in Georgia is somewhat similar to the

^ presidential electoral college! The pro­posed amendment also would delete from the Georgia Constitution, the expression "who shall be in life" applying to the situa­tion in which no candidate for governor shalKhave received a niajority.

In sptting forth statewide provisions gov­erning elections Georgia (1949, No. 309) provided that no action by any grand jury was necessary to make the act effective with respect "to all elections by the people . . .including general, special and primary, elections." This removes the county op­tion as to ballot forms. The same, act forbade that the ballot should be in the possession of any one except election offi­cials and voters on election day.

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS }••

- IN a special session in October, 1948|Uhe '.Georgia/General Assembly (Act No. 1) p required a sworn statement by each candi­date for presidential elector "that he is not now and never ha!f been a member of the Communist Party, and does not beliieve in or sympathise, with the principles of such Communist Party." 'Each party shall have

, its own column for -presidential electoral , candidates,' these xoLumns 1 jeing separate "

• frqm the other portions of the blanket bal­lot.

- Idaho (1949, chap. 141) allowed, the names of candidates for President and Vice -President to be inserted' above the names of <• electors;.the cross Kserves as a group vote for the electors of a given party, who are • bound to vote for the party candidates for President and Vice President. A similar ..^ Ijivjj was-passed ip Virginia in 1948 (chap. 3'57), applicab]e to the 1948 election. Vir-. ginia added tHe names of political parties, having previously been among a small "number of'states which avoided reference to political parties on the ballot.

Maine (1949) accepted the presidential short-form ballot. At present more than half the states have adopted the plan of leaving electoral names off the ballot.

At the geileral election in November, 1948, Arkansas adopted a constitutionar

. amendment (Acts, 1947, p. 1068) author­

e d

! : •

^

• 9 8 THE BOOK OR THE STATES

izing the legislature to establish a registra­tion system to .replace the poll tax listing of qualified voters.

Virginia in two successive General As­semblies (1946 arid 1948) propdsed a con­stitutional, amendment which would abol­ish the poll tax as a prerequisite for voting, set up a system of armual voter registration, and also repeal the ban on dueling in connection with, the suffrage.. This measure was to be Voted on in" the state general election in November, 194.9. Tennessee increasqd the number of poll tax exemptions, with the result that the poll tax now applies to an extremely small percentage of the electorate. .

THE PRIM.'^RY • ' .

In 1947,Rhode Island (Public Laws, chap.-1886) established the direct primary, leaving Connecticut the only state without this form of nominating procedure. Acr cording,to the Rhode Island revised law (1948v chap. 2100), the dates for primaries-in 19.48 were fixed as the third Monday in September for one party and thc'second Wednesday thereafter for the other party. The dates were to be reversed in the years to follow "so that the party that has the first date in one biennial primary will have the second date in the next succeeding bi­ennial, primary."

Alabama in 1947 (N0./6OI) and Ark'an-. sas in 1949 (chap. 479) provided-that un­opposed candidates be removed from the-

primary ballot and be. certified as the party's nominees for their respective offices %t the general election. This*temoves the possibility of a write-in for such office at the primary. The Arkansas law removed the write-in privilege for the primary but retained it for the general election.

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

i n Election code revisions took place New York, New\j£r'sey, Montana, and other states. While^'ej^cting a proposed election code, Arkansas made numerous changes in its election laws. Oregon (1949, chap. 480) revised'the procedure relating to the non-partisan nomination and elec­tion of judges J •* j " . '

The number of ballots to be printed has been reduced in a few states. For example, Maryland (1949, chap. 425) required that the number of primary ballots shall be 110 per cent of the registered party voters and that the number sent to each precinct shall be as many'as the voters of the respective parties, the surplus to be assigned as needed on election day. Florida similarly has bal­lots printed equaF to 110 per cent of the number of voters; formerly the number of ballots was do.uble the number of voters. In place of former April dates, municipal elec­tions in Arkansas are to be held oh the day of state and national.elections in Novem­ber. Idaho (1949,-chap. 130) provided that judicial candidates must be under seventy years of age.

• ^

' ; •

CONSTITUTIONS AND ELECTIONS

BALLOT FORMS* -

99

Corf_ Official Presidential Voting sdidal'ed Endorse- Numbered Straight Parly , Short Machine

State fBallof' menl Sluti^ Pattern* Ticket Emblem Marking Ballot Xegislation

C o l o r a d o . . . . . . . . Ck)nnect lcut . . . . D e l a w a r e . . . . . . . F l o r i d a . . . . . . . . .

Georgia

I l l ino i s . .

Iowa

Kentucky

Maine Maryland. Massachuset t s . .

M i s s o u r i . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire. New Jersey

New Y o r k . . . . . . ; North Carolina..' North D a k o t a . . .

O h i o . . ; . . .

Pennsylvania. . . .

Rhode Is land. . ' . South C&rollna^. South Dakota . . .

U t a h . . . .

Waahinfiton West Virginia. . .

•

•

• • • •

. . . . . <-~ •

•

•

• • •-•

• • • •

• •

• • • •

•

• • • •,

"•'

• . • •

. • •;•-*

• •

• •

•

" • •

•

• s s "D

D

s

• D S

• • ^ •

b.

* s •

• ' s "

" s" s

D'

s s

D D . D

• D

' s •

• • • • S

s

p-c • P-C O-G 0 - G

O-G P-C P-C

P - C P-C P-C P-C

P-C • OrG P-C P-C

P-C O-G

- O - G P-C .

O-G O-G

> P - C O-G

O-G O-G P-C P-C

P-C O-G P-C P-C

P-C P -C C O-G O^G

P-C

. P-C O-G

P-C P-C P-C O-G

P-C P-C P-C P-C

Tk

• .

"Vr" •

•

•

" • •

* ^ . ,

' • • • •

• • ' • t • •

•

' • * • .

•

• •

• ' • • •

" • '

•

"•'

• • '

' •"

• . •

• •

•

• • • *

' • '

X . X

X X

• X . X X X

<- ' X * •' ; . X

X ^ X ,

.X •x X

X X X X .

X X

• - x X

• x • X "

X . . . X

X - ' X . X

: • -f X

• X • X

• ., X

• X . . . •

Scratch X X

Scratch X . X X

X X X X

•

• *

• • •

•

• *

•

* '

•

Applied^ Applied" J

•Authorized Applied"*

Repealed. ' Applied*

: None * Applied?

Inoperative None Applied Applied* •

Applied* Repealed Applied Applied"*.

Inoperative Applied"* Applied"* Applied"*

Applied"* None None ' Applied?

Repealed None Authorized Applied*

None Applied' None None ^

Inoperative Inoperative -Repealed Applied*

Applied' None None Applied"*.

Applied"* Repealed None Inoperative

Applied* Authorized -Applied"* . None'

• A consolidated general election ballot Includes all offices and measures voted, on.

•i S - single perforated stub; D - double perforated ttubs. « P-C - Party-Column; O-G - Office-Group. ^ Machines used in a few urban areas. * Machines used extensively. ' Separate ballot for presidential electors provided in Laws.

1941. ch. 129.

«• StrjJght ticket, mark X; split ticket, scratch. '• New Tersey requires the presidential short ballot for voting

machines, which are widely used, and a group vote for electors -on paper ballots.

> -Presidential electors omitted on voUnn machine, the use of . which is mandatory for all precincts. - 'Separate ballot for municipal elections at local optloq. '' No Australian ballot. " "

•1

* Prepared by Spencer D.'Albright; Department of History and Political Science, University of Richmond.

100 THE BOOK OF THE STATES

QUALIFICATIONS FOR A^OTING

• • • . . Minimum U: S. ', Slate. . Age ; Citizen Slate

\ Alabama. . . . . . . . 21 if 2 yrs. S -Arizona... ^. 21 * 1 yr.

Arkansas.. 2t - A r 12 mo. California 21 . *< 1 yr. .

:" Colorado; . . . 21 / • . 1 yr. ., . Connecticut,^.. 21 : *i 1 yr.

^Delaware (.. 21 ' • . 1 yr. FlorWa... . . . i ^ . 21 • ; 1 yr.

'V • Gebrftla 18 • 1 yr. Idaho. 21 -k 6 mo.

; IlUnois.. 21- . • 1 yr. Ind iana . . . . . . . . . 21 ilr 6 mo.

I o w a . . . ; ! . . . . . . . 21 . ' •-k . 6 mo. K a n s a s . . . . . . . . ; 21 if 6 mo.

r Kentucky.. 21 •*• 1 yr. Louisiana 21 * 2 yrs.

Maine 21 - 6 mo. Maryland. 21 . ir 1 yr.

. '^ Massachusetts., t . 21 ir 1 yr. ^ M i c h i g a n 21 . • 6 mo.

, . • » " ^ - > - , • , • . ' .

^ Minnesota. . . . . . . - 2 1 irt 6 mo. • / Mississippi.'..... . 21 ir 2 yrs.

Missouri... 21 . . if- 1 yr. , M o n t a n a . . . . . . . • 21 if 1 yr.

Nebraska.. 21 , if • 6 mo. N e v a d a . . . . . . . . . 21 * -6 mo. New Hampshire. 21 * 6 mo. New Jersey. 21 * , 1 yr. v

New Mexico... . . .21 * 12 mo. New York. . . . . . . . 21 ift 1 yr. North Carolina.. 21 * 1 yr. North Dakota... 21 ic 1 yr.

Ohio 21 • 1 yr. Oklahoma 21 •*• . 1 yr. Oregon. 21 ir : 6 mo, Pennsylvania'.... "21 * , , , 1 yr. . ;

Rhode Island.. . 21 •*• 2 yrs. South Carolina.. . 21 if .. „ 2 yrs." South Dakota.:. 21 * i yr.

< - Tennessee . . . . . . 21 ic 12 mo.

Texas 21 •*• 1 yr. " U t a h . . . . . . . . . . . 21 * « 1 yr.

Veraiont... 21 if . 1 yr. . Virginia 21 if 1 yr.

VV^hington 21 * 1 yr. West Virginia... 21 • 1 yr. Wisconsin . . . . . . 21 ^ • 1 yr. Wyoming . . . 21 . • 1 yr.

Alaska, . . ! . . . . . . . 21 •*- 12 mo. Hawaii 21 • • 1 yr. Puerto Rico 21 • 1 yr.

^ Virgin Islands... 21. • 1 yr.

• Poll or head taxes are levied i n many other states. Those listed here, however, provide that payment of the poll tax is a pre­requisite for voting.

•> Must pay all poll taxes owed since 1901. Membcra of the armed forces are exempt from payment of poll taxes.

° Registration is permanent unless removed for cause. a Conditioned upon voting and continued residence. • Except for irrigation district elections. ' Registration is prohibited by Constitution. « Must have been citizen.ninety daiys. X J" City, or town, thirty days.. ' All except certain minor elections. ' Must have been citizen five years.

Residence in-Counly

' 1 yr. . 30 da. 6 mo. ••

90 da.

90 da..

3 mo. 6 mo.

6 mo.» 30 da. ' 90 da. 60 da.°

60 da; 30 da."

6 mo. • l y r .

; 3 mo, 6 mo.

66'da. • 30 da.

40 da. 30 da.

5 mo.

90 da. 4 mo.

90 da. .

30 da.' 6 mo.

iyV. 90 da.

6 mo.

6 mo. 4 mo.

• 6 mo.

90 da. 60 da.

66'da.

'.'.'.'. . -

. Dislricl

3 mo. • 30 da. . 1 mo. 40 da.

, IS da-.h : 6 mo.

30 da.

30 da. 30 da.

10 da. 30 da. 60 da.

3 mo.'

3 mo. 6 mo. 6 mo.'

20 da." •

30da. 1 yr." .

60 da.

10 da. 10 da. .

6 mo;

30 da. 30 da.

4 mo. 30 da.

20 da. 30 da.

2 mo.

6 mo. 4 mo.

30 da.

6 mo. 60 da.

- 3 mo.o . 30 da.

30 da.

10 da. 10 da.

30 da.'i' - 3 mo. ,

1 vr. 60 da.

Prop­erly

1 •-

. * * •

..-..,.

• '

(0

. . . .

. T^'-

• • • • • ^ r -

(ad)

Literacy Test

: • "

• -^i

' • "

• "

. . . .

'••'

...... .

• .

• Poll Tax^

;...'.

. • • >

• • • •

. . . .

' • »

. . . *

' • •

. . . .

. . . .

* For persons in military service only. .• ' Must owe no past due taxes.

"' Under 1949 act. all voters muat re-register and pass literacy test. Tho.se failing test may qualify by answering 10 of 30.oral questions prescribed by law. •

° For all state and federal elections. ° Township. P Permitted only in permanent sysleras. 1 Municipality, four months. ' In city or town. • For persons in military service and those unable to appear in

persoa by reason of physical disability., • ' For vote on bond issues or special assessments only.

•" /• CONSTITUTIONS AND ELECTIONS ' . 1 0 1 . '

QUALIFICATIONS FOR VOTING—Continued

, —; ; — '—Registration—: '• ^ -^ ^ '. • TyP^ Coverage ,»

- Permanent Periodic > . ' • • , *———'•—,, — '•—•*—-"^ •• '• '•—^ All ^ Sdme Absentee

•All ' Some All •^. Some Elec- Eire- Regis- Absentee ' i . . ' Areas, Areas , Areas ' Areas Frequency - tiqns tions Iration Voting Stale • •

•k' -k -k Alabama . ••' • • • • • Arizona

(f). (f) • (f) (0 . . . . > . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . ; . .Arkansas • . • . . . . • • . . . . . . . C a l i f o r n i a

• . . . . • ' . • • Colorado ic . . . . . . . . • * . . . .Connecticut i( . . . . . . . . i^ i( Delaware • . . . . . . . . . •••• . . . ,5.. • . . . . • ^ . .Florida

• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • . . . . . . . . . G e o r g i a • . . . . . . . . r - . . . . • . . . . • Idaho • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • - • Illinois • •• •• ...V • ' • • • Indiana

; . . . '•*• . . . . * 4years • • • • . j , * ? * > • * Iowa . . . . . • • • • \ . . . . • Kansas

• • * V. • \ - . . . * * "...Kentucky -k 4 years ilr 1 . . . . -k Louisiana

• . . . . . . . . ....- * ^—6 ^ • * Main^. • • • • " fk) . . . M a r y l a n d ' '

•k - * -k^ •*• ' V.Massachusetts • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • Michigan

. . . . -k . . . . * • •*• * . . . . . . M i n n e s o t a • *» . . . . .. Js • . . . . (w) Mississippi . . . . -tc -k 4 years k k . . .Missour i • . . . . . . . . . . . . ' • ' • • . Montana .

. ; . . * . . . . '.-k 6 years • ' • ^ * . . . . . . . Nebraska ' » • . . . . . • . . . : . - • \ . ..Nevada

•k . .... . . . . k -k k . .New Hampshire •k ' •. -k - , . . . . * Annual k ' fk) New Jersey

.^ . . . . . . . . ' k (k) New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . -k -Annual -k •*• * New York • -k • •'.•• • . .North Carolina

• • • • .. .North Dakota

• " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . • Ohio •k -k *" • * Oklahoma • . . . . ..... . . . • . . . . • • Oregon •k- .... .... k . . . . ...Pennsylvania

. . . . -k Biennial k A"" ^ . . . Rhode Island. . .

. . . . ; . . . *' : . . . • De;ennial 'k ' ' •. • •' ••'•'. •••• . .South Carolina

. . . . . . . . • Biennial • • • . . . S o u t h Dakota

.*.. (ab) • . . . . *r • • Tennessee

(ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) . . . . . . . . . ' ir Texas • . . . . . . . . • ! • . • Utah • . . . . • • . . . . . . . . V e r m o n t (ae) . . . . . . . . . . . . • • Virginia •<> . . . . . . . . • • . . . . ic • • . . . . . W a s h i n g t o n • • « ' • . . . West Virginia.

-k .... ,'^ .... k -k * Wisconsin . . . . * * •*-'»i'Every gen. elec. . . . . -k * . . . . . . . Wyoming •*• . *»' . . . . . Alaska

k .... Every election k •*• . -k Hawai i • ..* .f .... k Puerto RIcb

. . . . . . . . . •.. • . . . . . . Virgin Islands

" Ministers of the Gospel may vote after six months'residence.- ••'Counties of 50,000 population or more and cities of 2,500 ' Assessed upon citizens twenty-one to sixty years of age except population or more.

those specifically exempted. •'^Constitution provides for registration in cities over ten " Registration is for all elections of state and county, but voter thousand, but no.system exists. Poll tax receipts determine

must be registered in municipality also to vote in municipal eligibility of voters. , elections. •"General Assembly may set property qualifications for voting

* A person who became entitled to vote after January 1. 1922. in city, county, or town elections. must be able except for physical disability, to read and write ''Except in city of Richmond where voters must register in 1949

. English. and every tenth year thereafter, y Under.certain conditions. • • »'All elections except special elections. . • Ownership of-property ia aoValternative to literacy. •« Length of residence required may be lessened by ownership • • N o poll tax for primari/elections. Veterans, .women, and ' of property.

blind persons exempt from poll tax. »}'Precinct. •'Municipal election.

\

102 THE BOOK OF THE STATES

PRIMARY ELECTIONS IN THE STXTES

• • Mandatory (M) Run-off' Parlymembership-Nominalion. Presulenlial Date of ' or Primary; tests: Open (0) or of . preference

Slate Primary—Jt^f^ Optional {0) dale - tqgV- Closed (C) candidates* primary,

A l a b a m a . . . . . : . . . . . . . . May r ' ^ ^ ^ O Yes- May SCT^^C / MP(a) No Arizona . Sept. 12. . M No -O ' D P No Arkansas . . July 25 . ' M Yes—Aug, 8 C • C or DP(b) Yes California. . . . . . . . . . . ; . June 6 M No C DP No

C o l o r a d o ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . Sept. 12 M No . C M P No Connecticut . . ^ -p. . . . . : . . . No primary . . . . . . . . Delaware . . . . . . ' - . . • (c)' M . No O C No • Florida, . . ' . May 2 '. M . - Yes—May 23 . C DP No

Georgia , .:..... fc) O Yesfc) C . MPCd)* No I d a h o . . . . '.. Aug. 8 M " No C DP No • Illinois April 11 M . No C C o r D P ( o ) Yes Indiana . . . . . . . . . : May 2 M(f) ' No C C or DP(g) No

Iowa . ; J u n e s M • No O C or DP(li) No K a n s a s . ; . . . . Aug. 1 M No . C DP No Kentucky fj) M No C DPd) No L o u i s i a n a . . . . . . . . ( I ) . . M Yes(l) C DP(k). No .

Maine '..'. June 19 M No • C DP . N o Maryland . . ; Sept. 11 M No C DP(m) Yes. Massachusetts Sept. 19 M - No C C or DP(b) No Michigan Sept. 14 M No O C or DP(n) No

M i n n e s o t a . . . . Sept. 12 ' .lA ' No - 0(o) D P ' Yes Mississippi :. Aug. 8 M Yes—.•^ug. 29 C MP No Missour i . . . . t . ; . . Aug. 1 M No O . DP(p) No M o n t a n a , . . . . . . " July 20 M No . O D P No

Nebraska . . . Aug. 8 M No C(q) MP(r) , Yes Nevada. . Sept. 7 M No C(3) D P No . NewHampshire Sept. 12 M . "" No C DP Yes . New Jersey . . . . April 18 • M ' No C DP(k) .No New M e x i c o . . . ; . . . . . June 8 " M No C D P • No New York..; ; Not set M No C D P No North Carol ina. . . . • May 27 M Yes—June 24 C D P No North D a k o t a . . . June 27 M No . . O . • DP(k) : No

•Ohio . . . . . . : . < . . M a y 2 M(t) No C DP(k) „ Yes Oklahoma. . July 4 M Yes—July 25 C D P No O r e g o n . . . . May 19 M No C D P Yes Pennsylvania : . . . . . . . . May 16 M . No C D P Yes Rhode Island. ^ . . . . . . M(u) No C DP(k) No South Carolina. . , . . . • . . «< . . -Aug. 8 O ' Yesr-jAug. 29 O D P N o . South D a k o t a . . . ; . . May 2 M No O DP(v) Yes Tennessee . . Aug. 3 M(w) YesCx) C MP No Texas July 22 M(y) Yes—Aug. 26 C DPfi) . No U t a h . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . ; . . - . . . . Sept .6 . . .M . • • No ,. - • O v.^ M P V Yes V e r m o n t . . . : ; . . . . , Sept. 12 M • No" O DPfz) No V i r g i n i a . . . . . . . . ; . . ; . . . ^ . . . . . . . . (aa) O. No C C or D P No Washington . * . . . . . . ; . . . . Sept. 12 M No O D P No West V i r g i n i a . . . . . Aug. 1 M No C D P . Yes • Wisconsin Sept. 19 M No O D P No W y o m i n g . . . . . . . . . . . ; July 18 M No . C D P No Alaska .April 25 M No O D P (ab) H a w a i i . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . ' . . Oct. 7 M No C(o) D P (ab) ;

• Puerto Rico No primary. . . . . . . . •. . . . . C • (ab) Virgin Islands. No primary . . . . . . . . ' By petition • (ab)

•Abbreviations: C—convention; DP—direct primary; MP—mixed primary (both convention and primary) ,(a) if party electa to come Under primary election law, candi- (n) Congressional candidates, governor, lieutenant governor

. dates for state, national, circuit, district and county offices and members of state legislature nominated by direct pri-are nominated by primary elections except candidates who mary; all other state officers by convention, except non-are unopposed. partisan judicial candidates.

(b) Majorityparty, direct primary; minority party, convention. (o) Voters given a ballot listing all candidates under party ic) Date set by party authority. headings. Croiss-voting voids ballot: (d) Convention confirms state primai"y. (p) Most judicial officei-a appointed by governor from list sub-(e) Judicial candidates nominated by conventions, all other mitted by non-partisan commission.

candidates for state office nominated by direct primary. (q) Open in rural areas and in cities with less than 4,000 popu-•(f) M^datory for political parties which cast 10 per cent or . lation.

more of total vote at last general election, to nominate can- (r) Pre-primary convention "endorses" candidates. didates for state legislature, prosecuting attorneys, federal (s) School and judicial offices non-partisan. House of-Representatives, and county, city and township (t) Except for officers of townships or municipalities with less offices other than judges of the Supreme and Appellate ' than 2,000 population. Courts. (u) For parties which cast over S per cent of total vote for

(g) Candidates for state offices, United States senators and pres- governor at last election. idential electors of political parties casting 10 per cent of the ', (v) If candidates for governor, congressmen and senators do not vote must be nominated by convention. get 35 per cent of the primary vote, selection made by state

(h) Judges of Supreme Court and district courts selected by convention. convention; candidates for all other state offices by primary. (w) Except for parties with less than 10 per cent of total vote in

(i)- Minor political parties by convention or primary. last general election, (j) Primary for county officers and members of legislature held (x) Within 30 days, but not less tha.n 20 days. .

In odd years. • • • • (y) For major parties; optional for minor (those which received . (k) Except presidential electors. less than 200,000 yotes at last general election). (1) Next pnmary and general election of state officers in 1952. - (z) Except presidential electors and justices of the peace, (m) All except governor, attorney general, and comptroller nom-.' j>(aa) No primary in 1950.

inated by primary; .(ab) Territorial residents have no vote In presidential electioni.

. /