The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1930-01-31
CONSTITUTION
REVISION WILL
Be COMBATED
Legal Steps to Bar State
Referendum Planned
by Opponents.
ONE POINT AT ISSUE
Vote Necessary to Carry
Proposition Looms as
Stumbling Block.
ONE POINT AT ISSUE
BY BEN STERN

Injunction proceedings to restrain
the state from holding a constitu-
tional convention referendum in
November are expected to be in
augurated by attorneys for organi-
cations opposed to new conStitu-
ton, it was learned today.
The injunction will be sought
from the Indiana supreme court,
which will have to decide on the
method by which the majority
necessary to carry the referendum
is to be computed.
PrecedentS from the Constitution
of 1916 and the manner of voting
for the constitutional convention of
1851, together with the vote neces-
sary to ratify an amendment will
be used in efforts to obtain a de-
cision Of illegality Of the 1929 law
providing for the convention refer
endum.
The point in the 1929 law at issue
is the vote necessary to carry the
proposition.
NA0JOAAky ~ 4NCSCSSdIy
The staff eclares: eff a ma
1ority of the electors voting upon
this proposition at such election
shall be in favor of calling a Con-
5titutional convention" then such
convention shall be held.
The phraseology of this PROPOSE
ton" will be the contested point.
Opponents of the Constitution,
quoting Charles Kettleborough's
studies on Constitution Making in
Indiana" cite the following pre-
cedents upon which the injunction
is to be sought:
The Constitution of 1916, Article
VIII, provided for submission of the
question of calling a constitutional
convention to the voters every
twelfth year at the general election
held for Governor, IF a majority
OF ALL THE VOTES given at such
election we're in favor of such con-
vention.
The act of Feb. %, 1910, provid-
ing for such a vote contained the
language: There will not be a con-
vention called unless majority of
ALL THE VOTES given at such an
election" shall be in favor of con-
vention.
Many Do Not Vote
The question of a convention was
put five times until 1850 and failed
four times because only about half
the electors voting for Governor
voted on the question of a conven-
ton.
AS Marlborough sets out: ']The
vote for convention was greater
than the vote against. but not a ma
jority of the vote cast for Governor. :"
The Constitution Of 1851 provides
that in voting for an amendment
the majority Of electors voting in
the election must vote on the
amendment if it Is to pass.
The question Of a constitutional
convention has been submitted twice
TO the voters since 1851.
In 1859, when the question was
submitted, it provided that '1f a
majority of the people voting at
said election" voted in favor Of a
convention, it should carry.
Lost in 1918
In 1918 the question was submit
ted a second time. with the same
phraSeology regarding the vote, and
lost because of lack Of support.
The supreme court several times
has held that it is necessary for a
majority of all the electors voting
in the election to ballot for con-
stitutional amendment to obtain its
ratification.
Judge w. w. Spencer, Democratic
state election commissioner, has not
challenged the law, but has pro-
ceeded to formulate regulations for
the vote to be taken.
eff an injunction against a con-
stitutional referendum is obtained,
Of course no vote will be taken, but
until then the commissioners are
proceeding on the theory that no
such injunction will be issued" he
said,