Durango semi-weekly herald., 1902-12-29
EXPERIENCE OF COLORADO
WITH SUBMISSION TO
POPULAR vo'
Howa State Register. J

Colorado voted on six constltutio
amendments at the recent elect
The official returns have Just BIZ
completed, and it is of interest
compare the vote on the amending
with the total polled. The heads
the party tickets were the candida
for congressman at large. Th1
were six tickets in the field and
total vote of 1856 ,037 was polled.
With one exception the largo
vote on any of the proposed amer
ments, both for and against It, N
99,246, or but little over half Of Il
total vote. The proposition subml
ted was the adoption of an eight hol
day for work in the mines, smeltei
and in all the other industries Of Il
state where life or health are d
dangered. The majority for Il
amendment was large, the vote \
ing 1880 for, to 2O.266 against A
other amendment proposing that
fore any one can become citizen
dent of the state Ave years, WI
also adopted, the vote being 1856
25,326. Here the total vote both z
and against is less than half the v,
polled, while the vote by which
amendment is adopted Is abon
fourth of the total vote. two 0tS(
amendments provide for n biennial 4
stead of annual elections. Th1
were adopted by a vote of 45,191
25,243. the total again falling beld
half of the total vote polled.
The only proposition which call
out an at all adequate expression
public opinion. was the adoption
the Henry George land tax. and tn
was defeated by vote of 105, 900
$1,000. But even on proposition
intimately affecting all Of the peop
as such a tax reform would. 500
men who went to the polls refused
failed to express preference.
The Springfield Republican. co
menting upon the results of the vc
in Illinois, where out of S59.975 vot
polled only 5l6,123 expressed .
choice on measures submitted
them. insists that the objection Will
is based on these results to the thee
of the referendum is wholly witho
force. 1t says that because ever
| body among the electorate Is not
| telligent enough or interested enoui
to vote upon a given public questi0
or the enactment OF Efvip publ
measure, is no reason for say3AU ~
nobody shall be allowed to whossc,
telligent and interested. A limit
popular vote In referendum mu
prove more OF a restraint against u
popular or undesirable legtslati
than no popular vote" The IA,
with the Republicans reasoning
that it assumes that the vote is pu
ly advisory, and that any expressi
OF the opinion has its value for leg
lators. But the theory OF the ref
endum is not that the vote shall
advisory, It is to be mandatory.
the case of the Colorado amendmel
it is by constitutional enactm'
mandatory. and the state Is changI
its fundamental law at the dictat
OF one-fourth of It's citizens. 1t n
be best when a proposition 10 D
mitted TO vote. that a majority
those who are interested enough
cast ballot one way or the 0ti
should decide. But 1t is pow
argument against submitting any m
ters to vote, when the uniform
perience Is that even important ct
stitutional changes are made at I
dictation of one-fouTth Of onetni
OF the voters who go to the pol
Would the Republican favor allo
Ing the qualification of citizenship
Massachusetts to be determined
the votes of one-fourth. not Of
voters, but of those who cast II
ballots at any election?
The results OF he submission OF
constitutional amendments in C
rado serve to emphasize the fact
!. the people have become accustoI
to representative government,
that they desire to participate II
! by voting the general policies and
! men to carry them into effect r
protection against undesirable u
! lation Is in the declaration Of 4
= principles and the election of ho.
u men.
I