The Bismarck tribune., 1919-03-29

circulated or filed The proposed
amendment is submitted ut the next
general election, if the petition is filed
months prior thereto, The difference
the constitution are sef-evident. These
differences were recognized by the
men WHO framed, proposed and adopt
ed the scond subdivision. They estab-
lished new standards and prescribed It
different procedure for amendments
proposed under the second subdivision
from those established and prescribed
in the first subdivision. The first
subdivision expressly authorizes the
legislature to prescribe the time at, and
the manner in.t which constitutional
amendments proposed by the legislative
assembly shall be submitted. If the
legislature desires. it may direct that
such amendments shall be submitted at
Il, special election. But the second
subdivision expressly provides that
amendments proposed hereunder shall
be submitted at a general election. The
legislature is given unrestricted power
to prescribe the notice to be given pre-
vious to an election at which an amend
ment proposed under the first subdi-
vision is submitted to the electors for
ratification or rejection, (as a matter
Of fact it prescribed ten days notice.
but it is expressly provided that III,
amendment proposed under the second
subdivision shall be published for three
months previous to the general cleo.
tion,' at which ii is submitted.
Meant to Simplify.
At the time the second subdivision
of section 2O2 was framed. there We're
two prevailing rules in this country as
to the number >of votes required to
ratify Il constitutional amendment.
That is, also, true today. Some of the
states require only 4 majority Of the
votes cast upon the subject. while
others require the votes of a Majority
OF all the electors voting ait the general
election at which the amendment is
Submitted . Our sister state Minneso-
ta has the latter rule. u So has, MANY
other states. (Sec. AZ G. j., 694). The
former rule was omitted in the first
subdivision of section POP of the North
Dakota constitution. gta.d3 nerfig4Ei
If the men who framed. and the
legislators who proposed, the second
subdivision intended to make the rule
announced in the first subdivision ap-
plicable to amendments proposed under
the second subdivision. there was No
difficulty in finding suitable language
to express such intent. There1was no
occasion to search for or invent a.
phrase. The phrase clearly cypress
ing such intent, was right before their
eyes. Not only so. but the legislators
who proposed subdivision .. section 202
also proposed the constitutional amend
ment providing for the initiative and
referendum statutes. (See. Chap 81,
Laws 1911; Chap 1O1. Laws 1919.
And in this latter amendment it was
provided in plain and unmistakable
terms that statutes submitted to the
people for ratification or rejection
pursuant to initiative and referendum
| petitions shall require the approval
Of only Il majority of the votes east
| upon the particular subject
If the men who framed and proposed
the second subdivision Of section POP.
meant to say that a constitutional
amendment proposed thereunder should
require only "a majority of all legal
votes cast Thereon" why did they noe
say so? They said so in the petition
relative to the initiative and referen'
DUN Of statutes. 1t had already been
said in the first subdivision of section
2O3. That rule was satisfactory rs
to amendments proposed under that
subdivision No change was proposed
therein. But as TO amendments pro-
posed under the second subdivision it
was specifically stated that such a
mendments must receive majority Of
! all the legal votes cast ut such general
election ~
This phrase was used three different
time. The words were not used idly.
There was reason for their use. There
was. also. Il reason for the repeted use
of the identical phraseology. A con-
stitutional provision is the most delib-
crate and solemn of writings in our
country. 1t affects every citizen. 1t
i Confined on Page Six