direct vote of The People, we have been unable to amend the Federal Constitution, but The People in more than half the States are striving to effect the same result by indirection."

Stating that it is not extravagant to say that nine electors out of ten in California desire the electorate directly to chose United States Senators, Johnson suggested that the Direct Primary law be amended so there be a State-wide advisory vote for United States Senator, "and," he proceeded, "the logical result of a desire to elect United States Senators by direct vote of The People is that that election shall be of any person who may be a candidate, no matter what party he may be affiliated with. For that reason I favor the Oregon plan, as it is termed, whereby the candidate for this office, as for any other office, may be voted for, and by which the candidate receiving the highest number of votes may be ultimately selected."

Johnson dealt with those provisions of the law, which made primary election unnecessarily expensive and difficult for the citizen who wished to become a candidate for office, no less boldly than he had considered the section providing for the nomination of Federal Senators. "I think," said the Governor, "that the desire is general to remedy these defects."

This positive note had its effect. Those in charge of the bill came out positively for the Oregon plan of nominating United States Senators, and for such changes as would relieve the citizen who would become a primary candidate for office, of the unnecessary trouble and expense which the 1909 law imposed upon him.

The recasting of the measure along the lines sug

gested required much labor, and the bill was not ready for introduction until February 10. Boynton introduced the measure in the Senate, and Young in the Assembly. The bulk of the labor of preparing the bill for the consideration of the Legislature fell upon those two gentlemen.

The offensive partisan feature,100 which had created so much friction, was stricken from the law. The nomination of candidates for judicial or school office was placed on a non-partisan basis. This was accomplished by requiring that the names of all candidates for school or judicial offices regardless of their party affiliations be placed on all the primary ballots.101

The number of signatures to validate a petition for place on a Primary ticket was fixed at not less than one per centum or more than two per centum of the voters of the party in the political subdivision in which the candidate seeks office. Exception was made in the case of candidates for judicial office and school office, the minimum of signatures being fixed at one-half of one per

100 Under the 1909 law the primary candidate was required to file an affidavit, "stating the name of his party

that he affiliated with said party at the last preceding general election, and either that he did not vote thereat or voted for a majority of the candidates of said party at said next preceding general election, and intends to so vote at the ensuing election."

In the 1911 measure, the words printed above in black were stricken out and for them substituted, "he (the candidate) intends to affiliate with said party and vote for a majority of the candidates of said party at the ensuing general election."

101 This provision is unique. The effect of it is to make even the nomination of school and judicial candidates non-partisan. The most earnest advocate of a non-partisan judiciary at the 1909 session did not so much as suggest a reform so radical. The provision of the 1911 law provides: "The group of names of candidates for nomination to any judicial office or any school office shall include all the names receiving the requisite number of nomination papers for such office, and shall be identical for each such office on the primary election ballots of each political party participating at the primary election."

103

cent 102 Under the 1909 law, the minimum of signatures required for a State office was one per cent. running up to three per cent. for local offices, with a maximum of ten per cent. in all cases.1 The unnecessarily long primary and final campaigns, which, as provided under the old law worked great hardships upon candidates, were shortened. The several changes went far toward lifting the unnecessary burdens which the 1909 law put upon candidates, and incidentally removed reasonable objections to the Direct Primary system as it had been given expression in the old measure.

Provisions for nominating and electing United States Senators under the Oregon plan were incorporated into the bill.104 Under these provisions candidates of the several parties for United States Senators were given precisely the same footing as other candidates for State office. Provision was also made for certifying to their nomination, and placing their names on the final ballot. Further provision was made in another act, for presenting the name of the candidate who receives the highest

102 The Committee appointed by the Progressive Republican State Central Committee to deal with the Direct Primary measure, recommended that the percentage of signatures be fixed at a minimum of one-half of one per cent. and not more than two per cent. in the case of all candidates for State offices.

.

103 The committee appointed by the Republican State Central Committee to revise the Direct Primary law had suggested that for State offices the percentage be made one-half of one per cent. The committee even considered doing away with nomination petitions entirely, as did those members of the Legislature who were consulted in the drawing of the 1911 measure. But the idea was rejected on the ground that some restrictions on nominations are necessary.

104 Consistent with this course was the adoption without a dissenting vote in either House of Senate Joint Resolution No. 1, requesting Congress to call a convention for the purpose of submitting an amendment to the Constitution of the United States calling for the election of United States Senators by the direct vote of The People.

vote for United States Senator at the final election, to the Legislature as the choice of The People for that office. 105

To bind the members of the Legislature to observe this choice, it was provided that candidates for State Senate and Assembly might sign and file with their nomination papers one of two statements.106

Under the first statement, the legislative candidate pledges himself during his term of office, if elected, to vote for that candidate for the United States Senate who shall have received the highest vote at the general election. The second statement sets forth that the candidate, if elected, will consider the vote for United States Senator as nothing more than a recommendation, which he shall be at liberty wholly to disregard.

The measure does not require the legislative candidate to sign either one of these statements. Indeed, it is expressly provided in the act that "his failure to include either of such statements shall not be a valid ground on

105 Committee substitute for Senate Bill 9, introduced by Caminetti, "An act to enable The People of the State of California to express by ballot their preference for some person for United States Senator." But one of the 120 members of the Legislature voted against this bill, Senator Leroy A. Wright of San Diego. 106 The statements in full are as follows:

"Statement No. 1-I further declare to The People of California and to The People of the...... (Senatorial or Assembly) District that during my term of office, without regard to my individual preference, I will always vote for that candidate for United States Senator in Congress who shall have received for that office the highest number of the votes cast for that position at the general election next preceding the election of a Senator in Congress."

If the candidate be unwilling to sign the above statement, he may include with his affidivat the following statement:

"Statement No. 2-I further declare to The People of California and to The People of the...... (Senatorial or Assembly) District, that during my term of office I shall consider the vote of The People for United States Senator in Congress as nothing more than a recommendation, which I shall be at liberty wholly to disregard, if the reasons for so doing seem to me sufficient."

the part of the Secretary of State for refusal to receive and file his nomination paper or papers."

But the means is provided for the fullest publicity of the legislative candidate's action regarding the statements. The measure provides that on the ballot used at the primaries as well as on the sample primary ballot shall appear the words under the name of each candidate for State Senator or Assembly, "Signed Statement No. 1," or "Signed Statement No. 2," or "Signed neither statement," as the case may be.

In the event of the candidates having refused or neglected to sign Statement No. 1, which will be equivalent to refusal to agree to abide by the voter's choice of United States Senator, the voter may exercise his judgment in sending such candidate to the Legislature to represent him.

Such was the Direct Primary measure upon which the Progressive Legislature was called to act.

The bill met with no opposition in the Assembly. It passed that body by a vote of 54 to 0.

In the Senate, however, some opposition developed. Although the measure had passed the Assembly on March 11, it did not come to vote in the Senate until March 23, the Thursday before adjournment. When the bill did come up for final passage, Senator Wright presented an amendment.

Wright's amendment provided for a special election to be held in April of presidential years for the purpose of electing delegates to a State convention, to elect delegates to the National convention to nominate candidates for President and Vice-President.

In the matter of naming the delegates to the national