goes farther, and would make the circulator of petitions a public officer.1 - But the only proper solution of the difficulty — which would reach other difficulties in the system as well — would seem to be abolition of the circulation of petitions altogether, and the substitution of something else in its place. 5 Substitutes for Circulation For several years it has been urged that as a substitute for the circulation of petitions, petitions should be left in charge of the registration officers 2 of the county and signed only in the presence of the officer. "Prohibiting the circulation of initiative and referendum petitions and requiring that they be left with some constituted authority where petitioners may go and voluntarily affix their signatures is desirable for several reasons. One is that it offers a feasible means of checking the fraud and 1 "The governor shall appoint and authorize persons to circulate initiative and referendum petitions in like manner and subject to like conditions of character and fitness as may be required by the governor for the appointment of notaries public, and any person so authorized and appointed to circulate initiative and referendum petitions shall also give a sufficient bond to the people of Oregon, in the sum of five hundred dollars, conditional for the faithful performance of his duties and compliance with the laws of Oregon, in soliciting and verifying signatures of such petitions . . . and every such appointment shall be for the period of two years from the date of the appointment." House Bill, 1913, no. 365, sec. 2. See also J. D. Wheelan, Oregon Journal, Nov. 6, 1913, p. 9, col. 4. It has also been suggested that signatures should be made before the election judges at the primary election. H. Denglinger, Oregon Journal, Feb. 5, 1913, p. 8, col. 4. "If the proper period were established between the date of the primary and the date of the general election the posting of petitions in the election booths on primary days would be the ideal plan. They would then be subject to official supervision, accessible only to registered voters and be conveniently available for perusal and consideration by every one entitled to sign." Oregonian, Jan. 2, 1914, p. 1o, col. 2. 3 E.g., P. Hume's resolution, Oregonian, June 16, 1909, p. 10, col. 1; W. G. D. Mercer, Eugene Register, Dec. 14, 1913, p. 11, col. 1; Oregonian, Mar. 13, 1915, p. 8, col. I. See House Joint Resolution, 1915, no. 2; Senate Bill, 1915, no. 59; Washington Laws, 1915, ch. 54, sec. 7. forgery that is becoming an annual scandal and that threatens to bring popular government into disfavor. Another is that petitions could thus be made to express genuine opinion. Everyone knows that under the present system petitions do not express real opinion. They are signed for a variety of reasons, among which are desire to be rid of the solicitor or to help him earn a day's wages, and the natural tendency to do that which is requested providing it costs nothing. Petitions signed voluntarily by persons who would take the trouble to go to the registration clerk and affix their names would be a real call from the people for initiating or referring any measure. The professional tinkerer would be left out in the cold, for he would have to have a legitimate proposition before he could hope for a hearing." But, on the other hand, there is apprehension that such a provision would render petition-making so difficult that it would practically nullify the initiative and referendum.2 However, this objection might be overcome by a reduction of the percentages of signatures now required. A provision which would result in securing "representative" signatures would be preferable to the present plan, even if the number of signatures required should be very materially reduced. Less reduction would be necessary perhaps, if, as has been widely urged recently, petitions were allowed. to be placed in charge of responsible persons at places of business and other convenient places designated as depositories, as well as with the registration officers. With the percentages now required, in 5 1 Eugene Register, Dec. 18, 1913, p. 4, col. 1. E.g., A. D. Cridge, Oregon Journal, Dec. 4, 1912, p. 8, col. 5; W. S. U'Ren, quoted in Oregon Journal, Nov. 2, 1913, p. 2, col. 3; Oregon Journal, Jan. 22, 1915, p. 6, col. 1. 'Reduction from eight to six per cent for initiative petitions, and from five to three per cent for referendum petitions, has been suggested. G. Parrish, reported in Oregon Journal, Jan. 1, 1915, p. 2, col. 3. Oregonian, Dec. 15, 1913, p. 6, col. 1. Voting for measures at the primary election has been offered as a substitute for the signature of petitions. "Have all proposed laws listed, in the first place, on the primary ballots, where they could be voted on the same as candidates, only those measures which should receive the legal proportion of primary votes to be allowed on case of many really popular measures the method of placing petitions in designated places and advertising for signatures has met with disappointing results.1 "Attention to a proposal can be attracted by a dozen different methods and opportunities for voluntary subscribing thereto can be arranged in a dozen different ways" - the platform, press, billboard, hand bill, circular, public address, personal solicitation, etc.? Any necessity for making registration a prerequisite to signing a petition3 vanishes with the provision for signature at official depositories, for such signature amounts practically to registration.* It has been proposed that the verdict of a jury to the effect that the enactment of a measure by the legislative assembly the ballots of the general election. . . . This proposal would in no way interfere with any one presenting any bill he chose, but it would certainly insure against any bill going on the general ballot for which there was not a sincere demand by a legal percentage of voters." H. Denglinger, Oregon Journal, Feb. 5, 1913, p. 8, col. 4. (See also J. L. Schuyleman, quoted in Oregon Journal, Dec. 14, 1913, p. 15, col 4; F. E. Olson, Oregonian, Jan. 11, 1914, p. 17, col. 3.) Of course this is a practical equivalent to the signature of petitions in the presence of the election officers. The plan is objectionable in that it would increase the load of the already overloaded primary ballot. A modification of this plan provides for placing measures on the primary ballot upon the payment of a two-hundred-dollar filing fee. This is even more objectionable, for it would not only lengthen the primary ballot, but would doubtless very greatly add to the number of initiative and referendum measures submitted to the voters. "The trouble with the Crawford plan is that it puts the proposal of initiative measures upon a strictly cash basis - and a cash basis at that which is smaller than the present cost of circulating petitions. It gives the people no opportunity to prevent the overloading of the ballot with useless measures. There are already too many on the ballot at every election, and this measure would probably result in increasing the number many times." Eugene Register, Apr. 16, 1914, p. 4, col. 1. Cf. Oregon Journal, Apr. 2, 1914, p. 8, col. 2. An act of 1915 permits the payment of a filing fee as an alternative to the circulation of a petition in direct primary elections. Laws, 1915, ch. 124. 1 Above, pp. 59-60. 2 Cf. Oregonian, Dec. 15, 1913, p. 6, col. 1; Jan. 2, 1914, p. 10, col. 1; House Joint Resolution, 1915, no. 2. "Elimination or modification of the form of verification would be necessary, but with the signing wholly voluntary verification need not be hedged about with many safeguards." Oregonian, Dec. 15, 1913, p. 6, col. 1. Above, pp. 70-1. 4 Letter in Eugene Register, Dec. 14, 1913, p. 11; Eugene Register, Dec. 18, 1913, P. 4, col. 1. was induced by any form of " undue influence" should operate as a referendum petition.1 1 This alternative to referendum petitions was contained in a proposed initiative constitutional amendment, but was eliminated before the amendment was submitted to the people in 1910. "Any ten citizen freeholders shall have right to unite in bringing an action in the circuit court at the seat of government against any measure within ten days after it is passed by the legislative assembly, alleging that the same was passed by bargaining, trading, logrolling or other forms of undue influence. Summons and a copy of the complaint shall be served upon the attorney-general and the presiding officers of both houses as other process is served. The attorney-general shall defend the action, but senators and representatives may employ assistant counsel. The case shall be advanced on the docket if necessary and tried within twenty days after the close of the session. The verdict of the jury shall be on preponderance of evidence. If the jury finds from the evidence that they believe the bill was passed by any undue influence, that verdict shall be filed with the secretary of state; and as to such measure the verdict shall have the same effect as a petition for the referendum; said bill shall be referred to the people by the secretary of state for approval or rejection at the next regular election. Senators, representatives, officers, and other persons may be subpoenaed and compelled to testify after the close of the session, but they shall not be prosecuted criminally or civilly for any action to which they shall testify." W. S. U'Ren and others, Senate Document, no. 603, 61st Congress, 2d session, p. 157, sec. 37 (1910). Reprinted in Beard and Shultz, Documents on the Initiative, Referendum and Recall, pp. 373-4 (1912). Apparently the proposition was not generally well received. CHAPTER VII THE MULTIPLICITY OF MEASURES I The Number of Measures WHEN the system of direct legislation was established it was believed that the people would not often use their reserve power.1 Direct legislation was to be "the medicine of the constitution, cautiously administered when occasion might require; not its daily bread." 2 But the "hope that there would be so much consideration and self-restraint on all sides that the new methods would not be pushed to the extreme, but would be used only on rare occasions for remedial purposes," was, it was declared, even before the ballot had reached its present length, "a fallacious hope." 3 Since the system of direct legislation was established there have been six general elections and one special election at which measures have been submitted to the people. The provision for another special election, in 1903, was conditional upon the referring of a certain act of the assembly by petition, and the referendum was not invoked. At the special election held in 1913 only measures referred by petition could be submitted. At the election of 1904 three measures were submitted, one a proposal for a constitutional amendment referred by the assembly, and two initiative bills. In 1906 eleven measures were submitted, including five initiative measures for the amendment of the constitution, five initiative bills, and one act referred 1 Oregonian, June 30, 1902. p. 8, col. 3. Reported in Oregonian, Feb. 18, 1908, p. 8, col. 1. |