P ':'-\ r, f lA. V 4i ' 1 1 •.. -1 .-•*• /• • J" _ fr. • :v:^ 't?e- •? '*\ > • \. •NJ' • •..^" •'< I--' l.i. • r-/; • \ r #-. > 4 • • •'•••• o •,.'.•..• -11- .. -• •••"•-«.' V Section I ;- ' ^ >•• * COfsJSTITUTIONiS^^^ lO . tn* -,A. •\- ELECTIONS 1; jGonstitutiotis 2. Elections . \ / ii* •.• ••• fl ^ y A -^ '^•^ \ - • J-. \-, J: •Ss •. \ •'•'.ys » * ,. \ ^- ( ; i' ». ./• * • i • ra •Wr .• • /•,%•>• • •ffti> « v. •'• ".V 9 ^ ^t ••;••: ^-•-•:.' rm J /. V. ,. •«. • •> •J't- S'- • ••<'. .• - • 1 . f ^ •. :V •V.-,. • • • ft •V ^ •. .. <.f^- r V ^ •fh 7- .-^';.,- 1 -.c- -J^ ions r\ / • 1 y- J STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND dONSTlTUTIokAL : ^ I ' REVISION, 1959-1961 • : BY'\V». BROOKE GRAVES * « . -t—I- ,URiNG the 1959^*^ feiennium; about legislation was passed within five days,,; one-tl^ird of th\ ^sta{,?s were, as with ia-favorable- vote of 80-5i'in the usual,; more A)r. Jhsss actively con-' House and 55-1 in the. Senate.'In Ken- •cerned with the problem ofTconstitu- tujcky the constitution, can .be rewrittieh ..•>^. ^ tional r'evision. The convention issue was only after enabling legislation- has been ,^ V ijresented in tttree states. New Hamp- passed by two successive legislatures iajid "sliire has h^ld a convention, In Kentucky then 5ubrriitlte.d to the voters ini°a refer- a serious but unsuccessful- effort, was 'enduiji. The i960 legislative session" acted mad.e to obtain one. In Michigan a: con- -favorably. Thus the first two.stieps wer6 ' vention opened oji October 3, 1961. Con­ successfully completed, ^ut in the popii- tinuous revision appears to be function­ . lar referendum on holding aj^Onverition, ing successfully in Minnesota and New at the general election oh November 8, York, Constitutional commissions are or .1960, the prirfposal was again rejected By •^have recently been at work- in Kansas,< th© votei-s/^ ' • - ' Kentucky and West Virginia. Evidences J Had the. popular vote, been favorable, of varying degrees oMnterest and accom-, the convention authorized would have lishmentin constitutional revision may been a limited one, since the legislature Ee observed in it least nine other states. denied it authority to change the bill of • rights, prohibited introduction, of new CONSTITUTIONAL CoNVENxioNs ' . materia:! into the present .constitution, /veni;/cAy.Therer were significant fur-, * and required that the new.,constitution, ther developments in tlie long struggle to when written,'be submitted to a referen­ revise the Kentucky constitution, earlier dum. In addition, some othei" brOad limi­ incidents of which have been reportednn tations were specified. Changes-, however, previous •editions,of The Book of the would have been possible within ^ome States\T\it state established a Constitu­ twelve broad areas. ' tion Revision Committee (see page 9), Michigan. The movement for consti-- but the attempt to obtain^ a constitu-" tutionaj^evision in Michigan has been tional convention'Vas again unsuccess­ a; long, one, always interesting, at times ful. Less than two weeks after hi^ inau­ spectacular. Michigan has had thjree con- guration. Governor BerpCombs in 1959 stitutiohs, those of 1835, 1850,:anci 1908. called a special sessioW^ the General As­ Since •the latter date, the. voters have apy sembly for the .purpose of passing en-- proved sixty-three of 120 constrtiitional ;^^ling legislation for a convention. The amendments placed before them. The present' cohstitutiorj '\)rQ^ides that the •Mr. Graves is in the'Senior Specialists Division question of revision oy means of a con­ of the Legislative Reference Service, Library of vention must be submitted to the voters Congress. r periodically. Such submissions were made ••••).••..••-•.• -•.'-• • . • • -/ iv / THE BOOK OF'THE STATES • fn.l926, I942i and 1958. In each jnsi^nce ing Committee, for Con-Con, as a nucleus ' ' the proposition failed. ' .\ to campaign for passage of the constitu­ A good deal of time, money and effort tional .amendment in November." The amendnient was adoj^ted,^ and it was then, \ went into the 1958 campaign. Its failure, . ^' al'diough'disappointing to the supporters • possible to submit to the'yoters the qiies- . of revision, resulted in their deteraiina- *^ tion of icalling a convention. This was' > ^n to utilize other means of obtaining done at an- election in April,.. 1961, and • a convention. In a relatively short period the voters approved the calling of the •4 they'turned outran impressive aumber of convention.^'* • • . • . **'" studies of the state constitution and of; The constitutional amendnjent a- ' problems involved jji its revision.^, ;^ut dopted in November provided that/the despite a good deal of unanimity on tjie vote required for calling the convention need for revision among leading spokes­ ,was a majority of those voting on the. men of botl> parties, the road to a con- : question, rather thaji a majority of those yention, still seemed encuiribered with voting in the •electioh as-before. It also taaify obstacles. ^ *- changed the' arj-angemerits for selection' ' Early in. 1960, however, the. League of of delegates..Instead of three from each Women Voters and the Junior Chamber sienatdrial district, tlie new method pro­ of Commerce, with the support of organ­ vided for one, pliis one from each repre-. ized labor, began circulating petitions to seritarive district, thereby achieving ,a place a proposed constitutional amend* fairer distribution of representation. A -fU meht on the ballot at the general election special election for the selection of dele­ . of'November 8|:'I960,.designed to facili- gates had. to be called. Since the amend­ r tate calling of a^;;onvendon. For the peti- ment ..did not provide for the'methbd^of ' vjtion. 231,218 signatures were required, nominating arid electing delegates,, these and an adequate number were obtairied. •matters had to be determined-by legisla­ As a constitutional iamendment, the pro­ tion. When the primary was held on July posal needed for approval only;! simple 25,288 Democraticand Repifblican'nomi­ \ majority-of those voting on the question.: nees were chosen out of some 1,100 caridi-' : Fiftegi civic groups: which had partici­ dates. These, plus 5.Qme seventy-three, pated in the successful drive for signa-" minority party, /nominees, appeared . tores to'the petihons formed a Goordinat- on the general election ballot oji Se^^C tember^l2, when final choices were made to fill the 144 delegate seats ar the^con- "^These items inqlpde preparatory material for the 1958 vote, analysis of the campaign and the ventiph. \ • ; vote, and proposals for. further action: Citizens The convention rrtet IQ. Lansing 6n Research Council of,Michigan, Pro and Cott dri Octobers, and was expected.to continue Con'Con; a'-'Discusston of Some of the Major Is­ for several months, It^vas free to consider- sues Likely to Confront a Gonsiitutional'Conven­ tion . ,, .. i Detroit, October, 1958; Robert S. the entire statejforistitution in recom­ .Ketchum, T}ie 1958 Constitutional Revisiorifiarh- mending revisions; soiiie of the,Issues paign in Michigan, Institute of Public Adminis­ which, Mn . advance of -the coiiyehtiOrij tration, University'of Michigan, Ann Arbor/]Feb- ruary. 1960; Robert H,_Pealy, Ed., The Voter; arid seemed likely fo be given consideration,: the Michigan Constitution in i955. Institute'of' included strengthening of the officC/Ofj Public Administration; University of Michigaii^ Governor, sl>ortenirig the ballot, length­ Ann Arbor, 1958; Carolyn Stieber, Focus on Con-. ening the terms of executive and legis­ Con, Burieau of Social and Political Research, Michigan. State University, .East Lansing, <Febru­ lative officers, reapportioning the Senate, " ary, 1961; John P. White, Voting Machines 'and rhodifying die system of electing Suprgiie the 1958 Defeat of Constitutional Revision in Court Justices, reducing constitutional Michigan, Institute of Public Administration, limitations on legislative control over University of Michigan, An'n Arbor, January, 1960; Arthur W. Bromage, "Michigan Con-Con fiscal policy, and establishing county Fails," National Civic Review, Jinuary, 1959, pp. home rule—in a state which has had mu- 12-^14, 28; and Michigan State Library, Recent Information on State Affairs, No. 2, :Con-Con, 'For analysis of the amendment, see Citizens Lansing, Marqh, 1960, a selected bibliography on Research Council of Michigan^ "A New Approach constitutional revision, with special reference to to Con-Con." Council Comments. No. 705, Febru­ Michigan. ° >• • ' ary 8, I960. ' "N ... •-•i- \v V" 4 ' .'ff- CONSTITUTIONS AND .jELECT/bA^S . , 1 ' nicipal home rule, fon half a century.^ It been strengthened. Muh/cip'alities haye • ^is expected tha( the; work of the conven­ home rule, and other ty^es. of local gov- tion will be submitted, to. the voters for 'ernments enjoy a cpnstifutional'cliriiate approval or refection :at the general elec- -more friendly-to change thani^rmerly. tion'ofNovemqer, 1962. • \' -Many more changes initiated in 1959, are ' .n^f' New Harnpsf^ire. Under ' the' New still pending; "The : mere presence of • Hampshire constitution, there is a refer­ these amenditterits on the ballot,'' Pro­ endum on the qiiestion of holding a con- fessor Mitau continues, "testifies to the ."i: stituti6nal convention everyseven years. : iritreasing pressures for cortstitutionaT^ The electorate usually votes in the af- reform in Minnesota. This trend . in­ firmative* The latest such convention dicates an. increased ^williitgness among . miet December. 2^, "1959. Of some legislators ancj the public to support