Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Direct legislation has returned to excite considerable interest after a quiet period of a few years in which the traditional legislative processes were allowed to operate undisturbed in the states and cities. Old age pension plans put before the voters by initiative petitions in Colorado, California, and Ohio have excited more inspection of direct legislation procedures than at any time in their history. Several studies have been made of the laws governing the initiative and referendum, and also of their operation in the states. No less significant than state-wide initiatives and referenda have been the anti-picketing and labor regulating initiatives in Los Angeles; ordinances in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Oakland, California, requiring two operators on street cars; attacks upon proportional representation in New York by petitions; attempts by labor organizations in Detroit to set policies regarding working conditions on the city's street railways by initiative ordinances; or the attempts by firemen and police in many cities to obtain civil service and pension systems through the same device. Several of these cities now have approximately thirty-five years of experience with municipal direct legislation.
Numerous factors in American municipal politics have combined within the past fifty years to develop a sentiment for laying upon the electorate a portion of the responsibility for determining local policy. The idea that the voters of the municipality should be allowed, to decide certain policies was developed chiefly by the home rule movement.
1 Key, V. O. Jr., and Crouch, Winston W., The Initiative and the Referendum in California (Berkeley, 1939)Google Scholar; California State Chamber of Commerce, Initiative Legislation in California (1939)Google Scholar; Colorado Legislative Reference Office, The Initiative and Referendum in Colorado (1940)Google Scholar; Pollock, James K., Direct Legislation in Michigan (Bureau of Government Research, University of Michigan, 1940)Google Scholar; Cottrell, E. A., “Twenty-five Years of Direct Legislation in California,” Public Opinion Quarterly, Jan., 1939, pp. 30–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crouch, Winston W., “The Constitutional Initiative in Operation,” in this Review, Aug., 1939, pp. 634–645.Google Scholar
2 Equity, Oct., 1917, p. 201; see also Enos v. Huff, 98 Neb. 245, 152 N.W. 397.
3 San Francisco: Cal. Stats., 1899, ch. I, p. 241; Vallejo: ibid., 1899, ch. V, p. 370.
4 California Constitution, Art. XI, sect. 8. Oregon allowed its cities to amend their charters by initiative after 1907. Oregon Laws, 1907, ch. 226.
5 An example of the difficulties that sometimes result is shown in State ex rel Crow v. Carruthers, 204 Mo. 209, 222 S.W. 857 (1930). The Missouri recall law was copied from the Oklahoma statute. It required the city clerk to check the petition against the “voters' register.” The difficulty in this case brought out the fact that Missouri cities had no register by that title.
6 See Foster v. Young, 149 Okla. 19, 299 Pac. 163 (1931); In re Initiative Petition No. 2 of Cushing, 157 Okla. 54, 10 Pac. (2nd) 271 (1932).
7 Arizona (1912); Arkansas (1909); California (1912); Colorado (1910); Maine (1908); Maryland (1915); Nevada (1912); Ohio (1912); Oklahoma (1913); Oregon (1906); South Dakota (1898); and Utah (1930).
8 138 N.Y. Misc. 257 (1930); Mills v. Sweeney, 219 N.Y. 213, and McCabe v. Voorhis, 243 N.Y. 401, quoted. A somewhat different situation is reflected in Southwestern Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of Dallas, 104 Texas 114 (1911). Here the court took the view that “there is nothing in our constitution which forbids the legislature to submit proper subjects to the voters of a city by the initiative.” Dallas derived its power of initiative and referendum from its freeholder charter, not from the state constitution or any specific statute.
9 State ex rel Freeze v. Taylor, 90 Montana 439, 4 Pac. (2nd) 479 (1931).
10 Kadderly v. Portland, 44 Ore. 118, 74 Pac. 710 (1903); In re Pfahler, 150 Cal. 71, 88 Pac. 270 (1906).
11 People v. Willer, 37 Cal. App. (2nd) 729, 93 Pac. (2nd) 872 (1930).
12 Schroeder v. Zehrung, 108 Neb. 573, 188 N.W. 237 (1922).
13 116 Ore. 265, 240 Pac. 418 (1925).
14 James v. Ketterer, 125 O.S. 165, 180 N.E. 704 (1932).
15 66 S.D. 12, 278 N.W. 12 (1938).
16 242 Mass. 599, 136 N.E. 616 (1922).
17 Burdick v. City of San Diego, 29 Cal. App. (2nd) 565, 84 Pac. (2nd) 1064 (1938).
18 Starbuck v. City of Fullerton, 34 Cal. App. 683, 168 Pac. 583 (1917).
19 Dwyer v. City Council of Berkeley, 200 Cal. 505, 253 Pac. 932 (1927).
20 Murphy v. Gilman, 204 Iowa, 58 (1927).
21 People ex rel Holvey v. Smith, 260 Ill. App. 166 (1931), overruled by People ex rel Holvey v. Kapp, 335 Ill. 596, 189 N.E. 920 (1934).
22 State ex rel Mulvay v. Miller, 285 S.W. 504 (1926).
23 Taxpayers' Assoc. v. City of Houston, 129 Texas 627, 105 S.W. (2nd) 655 (1937).
24 This is now used in California in all cities operating under the general law. California Elections Code, Sects. 1711, 1712. Most chartered cities have other requirements.
25 Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes, Title 53, sects. 12198–1030.
26 Ley v. Dominguez, 212 Cal. 587, 299 Pac. 713 (1931).
27 Fleming v. Fones, 230 Mo. App. 1147, 91 S.W. (2nd) 208 (1936); Ford v. Gilbert, 89 N.J.L. 482, 99 Atl. 621 (1916).
28 Uhl v. Collins, 217 Cal. 1, 17 Pac. (2nd) 99 (1932); Knowlton v. Hezmalhalch, 32 Cal. App. (2nd) 419, 89 Pac. (2nd) 1109 (1939).
29 A study by the Detroit Bureau of Governmental Research shows change of bond limits three times; increase of size of council, and city employees' pensions, firemen's pensions, and municipal railway working conditions, each twice.
30 Solomon v. Alexander, 161 Cal. 23, 118 Pac. 217 (1911).
31 Whitmore v. Carr, 2 Cal. App. (2nd) 590, 38 Pac. (2nd) 802 (1934).
32 State ex rel Smith v. Fremont, 116 O.S. 469, 157 N.E. 318 (1927).
33 In re Stratham, 45 Cal. App. 436, 187 Pac. 986 (1920).
34 Detroit Bureau of Governmental Research, “Direct Legislation in Detroit, 1910–1925,” Public Business, Vol. 3, No. 15 (1925).Google Scholar Information on measures submitted between 1929 and 1938 was supplied the writer by the Bureau.
35 See Zion, E. R., “Direct Legislation in San Francisco,” Transactions of the Commonwealth Club of California, Vol. 25, pp. 548–558 (Mar., 1931).Google Scholar
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.