463. BASIS OF POPULAR CONTROL.—The fact that our government is a representative democracy entitles the voters to choose, direct, and control the public officials who act for the people at large. We have discussed a few of the methods whereby the nomination and election machinery might be improved; we must now go a step further and examine the means by which officeholders may be controlled.

Supposedly, officials are chosen because the people believe them able and willing to discharge public duties with honesty and efficiency. But after officials have taken office it may develop that they have secured their positions by unfair means, or that they are dishonest, or that they are inefficient or otherwise unsatisfactory. Wherever it develops that officeholders no longer meet with the approval of the people, truly representative government is impossible unless some method of effective popular control is found.

A. INDIRECT METHODS OF CONTROL

464. REFUSAL TO REËLECT.—If the voters are dissatisfied with the conduct of their representatives, they may express their disapproval by refusing to reËlect those representatives. This effects a measure of control, even though it is negative and not immediate.

465. REMOVAL BY THE APPOINTIVE AUTHORITY.—If satisfaction is not rendered by subordinate administrative officials who have secured office through appointment, such officials may be removed from office by the authority appointing them. The power of the President, Governor, or mayor to appoint generally carries with it the power to remove from office. Such removal may be on the initiative of the appointing authority, or it may be in response to a popular demand. From the standpoint of the voters at large, however, this method of removal is indirect and often ineffective.

466. IMPEACHMENT.—Unsatisfactory officials are sometimes removed by the impeachment process. In the various states either a part or the whole of the legislature may sit as a court of impeachment for the trial of certain important officials accused of serious crime. In the National government the House of Representatives may initiate impeachment proceedings against the President, Vice-President, and all other civil officers of the United States. In such cases the Senate acts as a court of trial.

Yet as a method of popular control impeachment is unsatisfactory. It is indirect, since a part or the whole of the legislature acts for the people. It is slow and cumbersome. It does not extend over the entire list of public officials, nor over the entire range of offenses.

467. CONTROL THROUGH THE AMENDING PROCESS.—The powers and duties of public officials may be partially controlled through the formal amending process. In all states except New Hampshire the constitution may be amended through legislative action, subsequently ratified by popular vote. About two thirds of the states also provide for amendment by a constitutional convention composed of delegates elected by the voters. In a number of states, as we shall see a little later, constitutional amendment may also be secured by means of the Initiative and Referendum.

The Federal Constitution may be formally amended in four different ways. The two most important methods are, first, by a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress, and second, by a convention called by Congress upon application of the legislatures of two thirds of the states. In either case the amendment must be ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the states.

The formal amending process is an important part of our governmental machinery, but as a method of popular control it is open to a number of criticisms. It is slow. It is indirect, for the people must rely chiefly upon their legislatures. Constitutional amendment cannot remedy all of the abuses of office. Furthermore, it is too drastic and far-reaching a remedy for many of the minor abuses of office.

B. DIRECT METHODS or CONTROL

468. THE INITIATIVE.—In more than a third of the states popular discontent with the state legislature, together with the growing self- confidence of the voters, has led to the adoption of the Initiative. The Initiative is a device whereby any person or group of persons may draft a statute, and, on securing the signatures of a certain percentage of the voters, compel the state officials to submit the measure to popular vote. If at this voting the measure secures the required popular approval, it becomes law.

When the measure is submitted to the voters directly after the fulfilment of the petition requirements, the device is known as the Direct Initiative. When, after passing the petition stage, the measure goes to the legislature and does not come before the people at the polls unless the legislature fails to accept it, the device is known as the Indirect Initiative. In a dozen states, chiefly in the West, the Initiative is also used to propose amendments to the state constitution.

469. THE REFERENDUM.—Early in our national history, it became an established principle that proposed constitutions or constitutional amendments should be referred to the voters for ratification. Of recent years about a third of the states, chiefly in the West, have extended the referendum device to cover ordinary legislation. This type of referendum may be defined as a plan whereby a small percentage of the voters may demand that practically any statute passed by the legislature must be submitted to the voters and approved by a specified majority before going into effect. [Footnote: A few types of laws are not subject to the Referendum.]

The Referendum is variously applied. In the Compulsory Referendum, which is the most common form, a measure must be submitted to the people whenever a designated number of voters petition that this step be taken. The Optional Referendum allows the state legislature to decide whether or not an enacted measure should be submitted to the people. The Statutory Referendum applies only to proposed statutes, while the Constitutional Referendum is limited to proposed amendments to the state constitution.

470. DIRECT LEGISLATION.—The Initiative and the Referendum are found together in more than a dozen states. The two devices are supplementary: the Initiative is a positive instrument which may be used to set the wheels of direct legislation in motion; the Referendum is a negative measure which gives the people a potential veto on laws passed by the legislature. The Initiative and the Referendum are known collectively as Direct Legislation, that is, legislation directly by the people, as opposed to legislation enacted entirely through the legislature.

471. ADVANTAGES CLAIMED FOR DIRECT LEGISLATION.—Important advantages are claimed for Direct Legislation. It is declared that the Initiative and Referendum keep lawmaking from being dominated by special interests. Because it constitutes a check upon constitutional conventions and state legislatures, Direct Legislation is said to make government more truly responsive to public opinion. It is claimed that Direct Legislation does not supplant, but rather supplements, improves, and renders more democratic, the formal legislative machinery. In several states, and especially in Oregon, it is claimed that the device stimulates political interest on the part of the voters. In Oregon the authorities print a pamphlet containing a statement of proposed laws, and summarizing the arguments of both advocates and opponents of each measure. Some weeks before the measure is to be decided at the polls this pamphlet is sent at public expense to every registered voter in the state.

472. OBJECTIVES URGED AGAINST DIRECT LEGISLATION.—Critics of the Initiative and the Referendum maintain that Direct Legislation has many serious defects. It is declared that by breaking down and weakening the state legislature, this type of legislation threatens the integrity of the framework of government established by the state constitution. It is pointed out that Direct Legislation shifts lawmaking from a definite group (the state legislature), to a large and indefinite group of persons (the voters as a class), upon whom responsibility cannot be fixed. By robbing the legislature of power and responsibility, the Initiative and Referendum are said to degrade rather than to improve that body: the best class of men is not attracted to a legislature which has been shorn of dignity and influence, and if the people rely upon the Initiative and Referendum, the voters deem it less necessary to choose honest, capable legislators.

It is also maintained that the Initiative and Referendum do not promote independence of political thought, since only a mechanical "Yes" or "No" is demanded of the voters. In all states where Direct Legislation is applied, it is said, so few persons actually vote that legislation is really determined by a small minority of the voters. Again, the ease with which the Initiative and Referendum may be set in motion allows so many measures to be brought before the people that they cannot vote upon them intelligently. It is also said that Direct Legislation is primarily the instrument of the propagandist, because in many cases cranks and professional agitators monopolize the privilege of circulating petitions.

A serious defect of Direct Legislation is that the drafting of many laws requires detailed and technical information which the average voter is in no position to secure. In several states, notably in Maine, the recognition of this difficulty has led to the adoption of a modified Initiative. According to this plan, the state legislature may examine any measure proposed by the voters, enact an alternative measure of its own, and submit both to popular approval. The voters decide between the two. The difficulty with this plan is that it is not only expensive, but that by doubling the number of measures to be weighed and studied it imposes an added burden upon the voter at the polls.

473. THE RECALL.—The Recall is a device whereby certain elective officials who have not given satisfaction in office may be required to stand for reËelection before the end of their terms. The Recall is set in motion when a petition has been duly signed by a specified percentage of the voters, usually at least twenty-five per cent. The Recall cannot be employed until the official in question has been in office a specified period, so that he shall have had an opportunity to give satisfaction before being subject to recall. Accused officials may forestall the Recall by resigning when a petition is launched against them, otherwise they must stand for reËlection. The ballot which goes to the people contains, in brief, the objections to the official, and, in some states, also the reply of the accused officeholder. If defeated at the polls the accused official must retire from office; if vindicated, he continues in office during the remainder of his term.

The principle of the Recall was recognized in American state government before the end of the eighteenth century, but in its present application it is much younger. In its modern form the Recall was first used in 1903, when the city of Los Angeles applied it to elective municipal officials. Five years later Oregon adopted it for all state officers, and since 1908 it has spread to a number of other states, most of them in the western part of the country. The Recall has been used chiefly against city officials, though in several states it may be applied to a majority of both local and state officials. In Oregon, California, Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada, the Recall may also be used against judges.

474. ARGUMENTS FOR THE RECALL.—Those favoring the Recall maintain that it is the natural and legitimate expression of the right to remove unsatisfactory officials. It is pointed out that the Recall permits longer terms for elective officials, for if the voters know that they can use the Recall to remove officials who prove unsatisfactory, they will feel safe in electing those officials for relatively long terms. By reducing the number of elections, the device lightens the burdens of the voter. The Recall is said to be a wholesome reminder of preËlection promises. It is also maintained that since the Recall is a threat, it encourages officeholders to be honest and efficient.

475. OBJECTIONS URGED AGAINST THE RECALL.—In answer to the above arguments, the opponents of the Recall claim that the device encourages officials to curry popular favor, regardless of public duty. It may also place officials at the mercy of popular passion and caprice. When it is applied to judges, the Recall threatens the integrity and independence of a branch of government which ought to be removed from popular clamor and prejudice. This last is a serious objection, for it may happen that judges subject to the Recall will hesitate to hand down decisions that may prove unpopular, however just those decisions may be. For this reason the extension of the Recall to judges is being strongly resisted. Even the most ardent advocates of the device are beginning to admit that the Recall is more applicable to administrative officials than to judges.

476. STATUS OF THE RECALL.—A satisfactory decision upon the merits of the Recall is difficult because it is so recent a development and still so little used that few data are available. The state-wide Recall has been in existence for a number of years, yet few state officials have been removed by it. Los Angeles used the Recall to unseat the mayor in 1904 and in 1909, and in 1911 the device was used against the mayor of Seattle. But the Recall is primarily a threat, and is rarely used. In view of this fact, the arguments for and against the device rest upon theory rather than upon actual experience. The Recall has great possibilities for good if wisely administered, but it may become an evil influence if carelessly or revengefully used.

477. SIGNIFICANCE OF POPULAR CONTROL.—The development of the Initiative, the Referendum, and the Recall indicates a growing impatience with the abuses of party power, the evils of the long ballot, and the corruption and inefficiency of many legislative bodies. It is significant that direct popular control has accompanied the widespread movement to reform municipal government, and that it is playing an increasingly important part in the movement to reform state administration.

Up to the present time, the Initiative, the Referendum, and the Recall have been confined chiefly to the West, where political problems are less acute than in the East, and where, too, the tendency toward direct participation in government has always been marked. Nevertheless, there is some indication that the future will see an extension of direct popular control, not only in the West, but also in other parts of the country. Whether or not this extension is desirable we cannot now say. But certainly it is an interesting and important development, and one demanding careful study and mature deliberation on the part of those who seek to make American government highly effective.

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT

1. What is the basis of popular control?

2. Name several methods of indirect control, and point out the objections to each.

3. What is the Initiative?

4. Distinguish between the Direct and the Indirect Initiative.

5. What is the Referendum?

6. What is the extent of the Referendum in this country?

7. What is Direct Legislation?

8. Summarize the arguments in favor of Direct Legislation.

9. What objections are urged against Direct Legislation?

10. What is the Recall?

11. To what extent has the Recall been adopted in this country?

12. What arguments are used to justify the use of the Recall?

13. What are the chief objections to the Recall?

14. What is the present status of the Recall?

15. What is the significance of direct popular control?

REQUIRED READINGS

1. Williamson, Readings in American Democracy, chapter xxxvii.

Or all of the following:

2. Beard, American Government and Politics, chapter xxiii.

3. Massachusetts Constitutional Convention Bulletins (1917), No. 6.

4. Munro, The Government of the United States, chapter xxv.

5. Lowell, Public Opinion and Popular Government, chapters xiii, xiv, and xv.

QUESTIONS ON THE REQUIRED READINGS

1. Summarize the principles underlying the Initiative and Referendum. (Beard, pages 469-471.)

2. Name some states in which the Initiative and the Referendum have been established. (Beard, page 463.)

3. Describe the workings of the Initiative. (Munro, page 506.)

4. Describe the workings of the Referendum. (Munro, pages 507-508.)

5. To what extent has there been an attempt to apply the Initiative and Referendum to national legislation? (Beard, pages 465-466.)

6. In what ways does Direct Legislation establish a system of minority rule? (Munro, page 515.)

7. To what extent does Direct Legislation delay law-making? (Lowell, pages 226-228.)

8. What is the nature of the laws enacted by the Initiative? (Lowell, pages 205-206.)

9. What has been the attitude of the courts toward the Initiative and Referendum? (Massachusetts Bulletin, pages 41-43.)

10. Enumerate the forms of the Recall. (Beard, pages 472-473.)

11. What part did the Recall play in early American history? (Munro, page 516.)

12. Describe the Recall election. (Munro, page 520.)

TOPICS FOR INVESTIGATION AND REPORT

I

1. The proportion of the public officials of your municipality who may be removed by an appointing authority.

2. Impeachment in your state. (Consult the state constitution.)

3. Extent to which the constitution of your state has been amended.

4. The Initiative in your state.

5. The Referendum in your state.

6. Extent to which the Initiative and the Referendum are found together in your state.

7. The Recall in your state. If this device has not been adopted in your state, find out whether or not its adoption is being agitated.

II

8. Development of Direct Legislation in the United States. (Munro, The Initiative, Referendum and Recall, chapter iv.)

9. Representative versus Direct Legislation. (Munro, The Initiative, Referendum and Recall, chapters vii and viii.)

10. The Initiative and Referendum in Oregon. (Kaye, Readings in Civil Government, pages 295-303; Munro, The Initiative, Referendum and Recall, chapters ix and x.)

11. The Initiative in Switzerland. (Annals, vol. xliii, pages 110- 145.)

12. The Referendum in Switzerland. (Annals, vol. xliii, pages 110- 145; Lowell, Public Opinion and Popular Government, chapter xii.)

13. Development of the Recall. (Munro, The Initiative, Referendum and Recall, chapter xii.)

14. The Recall in Los Angeles. (Munro, The Initiative, Referendum and Recall, chapter xiv.)

15. The Recall in Oregon. (Munro, The Initiative, Referendum and Recall, chapter xi.)

16. The Recall in Seattle. (Munro, The Initiative, Referendum and Recall, chapter xv.)

17. The Recall in Switzerland. (Annals, vol. xliii, pages 110-145.)

18. The Judicial Recall. (Annals, vol. xliii, part iii.)

19. Judicial decisions relating to the Initiative, Referendum and Recall. (Beard and Schultz, Documents on the State-wide Initiative, Referendum and Recall, chapters xxxi-xxxvi.)

FOR CLASSROOM DISCUSSION

20. Should the Initiative and Referendum be applied to National legislation?

21. Do the Initiative and Referendum increase the burden upon the voter?

22. The effect of the Initiative and Referendum upon the character of the state legislature.

23. Should the Recall be applied to judges?

24. Merits and defects of such forms of direct popular control as exist in your state.

25. Future development of direct popular control in the United States.