Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1899-11-01

weakened by the fact that the consti-
I tutions Of most of the states if not re-
Vised in convention have yet been
amended from time to time. but after
giving full weight TO the changes thus
made it can still be said that the states
| are strongly conservative in respect to
the revision of their constitutions
This conservatism is naturally great
er in the older and Weather states
than in the newer. which are so rap
idly gaining in population and wealth.
It is greater in the north than in the
south. which is still adjusting itself to
the economic conditions imposed on IL
as the result of the war. From this
difference arises a difficulty in tracing
the attitude of the various states to-
/ ward any new political problem. A
conservative state would likely treat
the matter by statute: the more radi-
cal would likely give it place IN the
constitution. In tracing tendencies in
recent state constitutions conclusions
based on comparisons should for this
reason be made with care. The char
acter Of the state and the date of its
constitution will to a large extent de-
( termine whether certain legislation
should be sought for in constitution or
in Statute book. The difficulty of
searching through so many constitu-
tons and statute books has hitherto
been well nigh insurmountable. but
since 1890 this labor has been greatly
lightened by the excellent bulletins an
nually prepared by the university of
, the state of New York, which show
| in outline the legislation of the vari-
Gus states.
The development of the methods Of
altering constitutions is full of inter-
est. As already mentioned some of our
earliest state constitutions contained
no provisions for their amendment
. This proved no bar to alterations. for
they were amended or revised like or
binary legislation or in convention
( Gradually provisions We're introduced
authorizing the legislatures to submit
amendments for popular approval or
rejection In some constitutions there
was a further provision that an entire
revision might be made by a conven-
ton cOnvoked for that special purpose.
This body was usually called together
by the Legislature, but in two states,
Pennsylvania and Vermont. by a spa-
cial body known as the board of cen
sors, which was empowered to convoke
. convention and to submit amend
ments.
In recent years at least six legisla-
lures have authorized special commits
sions to recommend amendments. viz,
New York, 1872: Michigan. 1873: Maine.
1875; New Jersey. 1881: Louisiana. 1894:
Rhode Island. 1897. The reports of two
Of these commissions. Michigan and
Rhode Island, were not simply amend
ments of the constitution, but complete
revisions thereof. Both these revis-
ions were rejected when submitted 20
the people of Michigan, March. 1874:
Rhode Island. November, 1898. June,
1899 The report of the New Jersey
commission was never finally acted on
and the reports OF the Maine and New
York Commissions were adopted only
in part. The Louisiana report was en-
tirely rejected at the polls in 1896. At
the present time boards of censors ara
no longer used and commissions can
hardly yet be considered a permanent
feature of our amending system. There
remain. therefore % the method of re
vision through a convention especially
convoked for that purpose and (2) the
method Of amending through the initi-
alton of the Legislature and ratification
oy popular vote. In Switzerland
amendments may originate through
popular initiative. but this method has
not yet been adopted by any one of our
states.
There are numerous variations in the
method of amending constitutions by
legislative initiative. In the older cor
situations amendments adopted by one
Legislature have to be submitted for
~, r-o1
publication, and then referred to the
people for approval or rejection. In
ne newer constitutions the tendency
is TO omit action by the second legis-
'ature. The two methods vary in re-
quirements as to length of publication
and fraction OF vote necessary in legis-
lature and at the polls. OF the seven
new constitutions made since 1885 six
provide for action by one Legislature
and the people CSouth Dakota. Mon
tana, Idaho. Wyoming. Washington.
Utah) and one North Dakota) for ac-
ton by two legislatures and the peo-
pie. Of the eight revisions, Florida.
Mississippi and Louisiana retain the
newer and simpler form from their
old constitutions. Kentucky changed
from the old to the new, New York re-
tanned the older form. South Carolina
has a useless variation in that the pop
uIar vote intervenes between the action
of two legislatures. New Hampshire
retains it's ancient method of amending
at seven-year intervals if demanded
by popular vote. and Delaware It's old
method of adopting amendments
through action of two legislatures. but
without submission to the people The
rejected revision in Rhode Island also
retained the old-tlme method of action
through two legislatures and the peo-
pie.
The tendency is to place no limita
ton on the number of amendments
which may be submitted at a given
time. None of the sixteen constitu-
lions under discussion makes such a
limit except Montana. which limits the
number at any one election to three,
and Kentucky, which allows but two.
It is more democratic to allow voters
considering several amendments to
vote on each separately. Thirteen Of
the sixteen states do SO. Delaware sub