Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

referred to. We have also appended the report of the New York State Bar Association in special meeting to this Association upon the effort in the state to publish in each county the attitude of the local Bar upon the question of judicial recall. Following this is added a selected bibliography showing much of the current discussion.

We would respectfully recommend that the work of this Association in opposition to the Judicial Recall be continued, upon the same lines as heretofore; and that the utmost encouragement and most liberal appropriations possible be given by this Association to its committees which shall be organized each succeeding year to expose the fallacy of the Judicial Recall.

Respectfully submitted,

ROME G. BROWN, Minneapolis, Minn., Chairman,
LAWRENCE COOPER, Huntsville, Ala.,

EVERETT E. ELLINWOOD, Bisbee, Ariz.,

GEO. B. ROSE, Little Rock, Ark.,

CURTIS H. LINDLEY, San Francisco, Calif.,
FRANK E. GOVE, Denver, Col.,
WILLIAM BROSMITH, Hartford, Conn.,
WILLARD SAULSBURY, Wilmington, Del.,
CHAPIN BROWN, Washington, D. C.,
ALEXANDER R. LAWTON, Savannah, Ga.,
DAVID L. WITHINGTON, Honolulu, Hawaii,
JAMES H. HAWLEY, Boise Idaho,
GEORGE T. PAGE, Peoria, Ill.,
SAMUEL O. PICKENS, Indianapolis, Ind.,
E. M. CARR, Manchester, Iowa,
CHARLES BLOOD SMITH, Topeka, Kans.,
EDMUND F. TRABUE, Louisville, Ky.,
EDWIN T. MERRICK, New Orleans, La.,
ISAAC W. DYER, Portland, Me.,
WILLIAM L. MARBURY, Baltimore, Md.,
JEREMIAH SMITH, JR., Boston, Mass.,
SAMUEL T. DOUGLAS, Detroit, Mich.,
JOHN ALLEN, Tupelo, Miss.,
JOHN F. LEE, St. Louis, Mo.,

L. P. SANDERS, Butte, Mont.,
WILLIAM D. MCHUGH, Omaha, Neb.,
HUGH H. BROWN, Tonopah, Nev.,
FRANK S. STREETER, Concord, N. H.,
RICHARD V. LINDABURY, Newark, N. J.,
WILLIAM C. REID, Roswell, N M.,
WILLIAM B. HORNBLOWER, New York, N. Y.,
HARRY SKINNER, Greenville, N. C.,
H. A. BRONSON, Grand Forks, N. D.,
LAWRENCE MAXWELL, Cincinnati, Ohio,
J. R. KEATON, Oklahoma City, Okla.,
FREDERICK V. HOLMAN, Portland, Ore.,
RODNEY A. MERCUR, Towanda, Pa.,
MANUEL RODRIGUEZ-SERRA, San Juan, P. R.,
THOMAS A. JENCKES, Providence, R. I.,
P. ALSTON WILLCOX, Florence, S. C.,
NORMAN T. A. MASON, Deadwood, S. D.,
ALBERT W. BIGGS, Memphis, Tenn.,
WM. H. BURGES, El Paso, Tex.,
E. B. CRITCHLOW, Salt Lake City, Utah,
GEORGE B. YOUNG, Newport, Vt.,
EPPA HUNTON, JR., Richmond, Va.,
CHARLES E. SHEPARD, Seattle, Wash.,
D. J. F. STROTHER, Welch, W. Va.,
BURR W. JONES, Madison, Wis.,
JOHN W. LACEY, Cheyenne, Wyo.,

Committee to Oppose the Judicial Recall.

PROVISIONS FOR JUDICIAL RECALL ADOPTED IN VARIOUS STATES.

The following synopsis shows the Judicial Recall measures already adopted in certain states. In states not here mentioned it has not been passed by the legislature nor adopted by the people.

OREGON. Recall of Judges. Constitutional amendment, adopted in 1908 under initiative by the people. Authorizes recall

and new election to fill vacancy at the same time on petition not to exceed 25 per cent of qualified voters. Allows judge to resign within five days. In case of failure to resign, recall election within 20 days after filing petition. Charges of not to exceed 200 words in length must be included in petition and placed on ballot, and defense of same length allowed on ballot. Grounds for recall and nature of statement of same not specified. It is now generally assumed that constitutional provision not selfexecuting, and requires facilitating legislation. Facilitating act of legislature in 1913 passed but vetoed by Governor. No successful instance of judicial recall in this state. See Oregon Constitution, Article II, Sec. 18.

CALIFORNIA. Recall of Judges. Constitutional amendment adopted in 1911. Constitutional provision is made self-executing, but allows further legislation. Provision for charges and defense same as in Oregon, except 300-word defense allowed. Recall election includes selection of successor. Majority of votes actually cast decides, as in Oregon. Recall petition must be signed by 12 per cent of number of votes cast at last election; provided that in the case of any state officer elected in any political subdivision of the state, the percentage is 20 per cent, and in case of officer elected from the state at large, signatures must include 1 per cent of the number of votes cast at the last election in each of five counties. The only successful judicial recalls which have taken place in the United States, so far as we have learned, is that of the recent case of Judge Weller, in San Francisco, and one justice of the peace in Arizona. See California Constitution, Article 23.

COLORADO.-Recall of Judges and Recall of Judicial Decisions. Constitutional amendments on initiative of people adopted general election 1912. Recall of Judges same as in California, except 25 per cent of number of votes cast at election required on recall petition. Recall of Judicial Decisions provides that before a supreme court decision declaring a statute or certain city charter provisions unconstitutional shall be enforced, it may be, on petition of 5 per cent of qualified electors of the state or city, as the case may be, referred to the electors of the state or city;

and if a majority of the votes cast is against the decision, the decision is recalled and the law stands. Thus there is established, in Colorado, a sort of local option as to the control of the final judgments of the highest court of the state. See Colorado Constitution, New Article XXI, and amendment to Section 1, Article VI. A case questioning the regularity of the submission of these amendments, and therefore, their validity, is now pending in the State Supreme Court.

ARIZONA. Recall of Judges. Arizona Constitutional Convention, December 9, 1910, proposed a constitution which included provision for recall of all public officers, including the judiciary. Allowed recall from any office by qualified electors of any electoral district, which electoral district may comprise the entire state. Recall petition must be signed by 25 per cent of the number of votes cast at last preceding general election for the office in question. (Section 1, Article VIII, Constitution of 1910.) August 15, 1911, this constitution disapproved by President Taft. (See Veto Message, House Document 106, 62d Congress, 1st session.) By joint resolution of August 21, 1911, the Congress provided as a condition for admission that said Section 1 of Article VIII of the proposed constitution should be amended by vote of the people by inserting the words "except members of the judiciary." (See Joint Resolution No. 8, of August 21, 1911.) By special election December 12, 1912, the amendment eliminating the recall of the judiciary was passed by vote of 14,963 in favor, and 1980 votes against. After admission to statehood, the first legislature of Arizona, on April 26, 1912, proposed a constitutional amendment changing Section 1 of Article VIII by eliminating the exception proposed by Congress and adopted by the people as a condition to being admitted to statehood. On November 5, 1912, at a special election, this amendment was adopted by 16,272 votes in favor and 3705 votes against. (See Arizona Constitution, Section 1, Article VIII, as thus amended.) There has, as yet, been no attempt at recall in Arizona, except one justice of the peace was recalled in a small precinct in Cochise County by less than a dozen votes; and there is now pending a recall against Judge John C. Phillips of Maricopa County, for directing a verdict in a personal injury case,

under a petition circulated by the labor unions of Phoenix and filed while Judge Phillips had yet under advisement a motion for a new trial.

NEVADA. Recall of Judges. Constitutional amendment proposed by legislature in 1911; adopted general election 1912. General provisions same as in Oregon. Facilitating legislation adopted in 1913. See Nevada Session Laws, Ch. 258, Laws 1913 and Constitution, Article II, Section 9.

ARKANSAS.-Recall of Judges. Constitutional amendment, initiated by people under the initiative and referendum, passed at the 1912 election. Supreme Court held not properly submitted and, therefore, never adopted. Under state constitution only three amendments can be submitted at one election. The 1913 legislature submitted three amendments on other subjects. Accordingly, no recall amendment can be passed for at least two years.

KANSAS.-Recall of Judges. The legislature of 1913 proposed amendment for adoption by the people at general election in 1914. It provides for recall election without selection of candidate to fill vacancy. Recall petition must be signed by 10 per cent of number of vote cast at last election in case of state officers, 15 per cent in case the electoral division is less than a state and greater than a county, and 25 per cent where it is a county or lesser division. See Kansas Laws 1913, Ch. 336.

MINNESOTA. Recall of Judges. Constitutional amendment proposed by legislature of 1913 for submission at general election of 1914. Gives power to the legislature to provide recall of elective officers, including judges. Recall petition must be signed by not less than 20 per cent and not more than 30 per cent of number of votes cast for governor in the electoral division at last preceding election. Judge may resign in five days after filing petition; otherwise, election in 25 days. Question is confined to recall. No election of successor. 200-word charge and 200-word defense. No petition to be filed until judge has held office for six months nor within 60 days of any decision complained of. Recalled judge not eligible for re-election. See Minnesota Laws 1913, Ch. 593.

« ForrigeFortsett »