ballot to its original simplicity and effectiveness, or to take the judiciary out of politics.

The Democratic party in its platform adopted the following year declared for a non-partisan judiciary and for the removal of the party circle from the ballot.

The Republican party platform went further and was more specific. It declared for "the restoration of the true Australian ballot as originally adopted in California, without 'party circle' or 'party column,' and for placing of the names of judicial candidates on the election ballot without party designation."

The work of drawing a bill along the lines pledged in the Republican platform and partially pledged in the Democratic, fell largely to Assemblyman C. C. Young of Berkeley, who had introduced the Young bill at the 1909 session, and to Senator A. E. Boynton of Butte, who had introduced the Judicial Column bill at that session.

The bill prepared by these gentlemen abolished the "party circle" and the "party column" as had been attempted in the Young bill two years before. This left the names of candidates to be grouped on the election ballot under the name of the office to which they aspired, as had been provided by the original Australian ballot law introduced in the Legislature at the behest of Judge Maguire and his associates nearly a quarter of a century before.

The Young-Boynton measure also provided that the names of candidates for judicial office shall appear on the ballot without party designation, which was essentially the feature of the Boynton bill of 1909. The measure further provided for a place on the ballot for the names

of the nominees of the several parties for the United States Senate, that the provisions of the Oregon plan for nominating United States Senators might be carried


Not a vote was cast against the measure in either House. The restoration of the Australian ballot, and the lifting of the judiciary out of politics, which even at the 1909 session the machine had successfully resisted, was thus accomplished without opposition, both parties rallying to the support of the reform.



Endorsed in the Democratic and Republican Platforms, and Strongly Urged by Governor Johnson in His Inaugural Address, the Amendment Was Adopted by a Total Vote in the Two Houses of 106 to 1.

Governor Johnson in his inaugural address pointed out that after California's government shall be composed of only those who represent one sovereign and master, The People, The People can best be armed to protect themselves hereafter, by the taking unto themselves the powers contained in the "Initiative," the "Referendum" and the "Recall." 115

In this Governor Johnson was thoroughly in accord

115 "When, with your assistance," said Governor Johnson, "California's government shall be composed only of those who recognize one sovereign and master, The People, then is presented to us the question of, How best can we arm The People to protect themselves hereafter? If we can give to The People the means by which they may accomplish such other reforms as they desire, the means as well by which they may prevent the misuse of the power temporarily centralized in the Legislature and an admonitory and precautionary measure which will ever be present before weak officials, and the existence of which will prevent the necessity for its use, then all that lies in our power will have been done in the direction of safeguarding the future and for the perpetuation of the theory upon which we ourselves shall conduct this government. This means for accomplishing other reforms has been designated the 'Initiative and the Referendum,' and the precautionary measure by which a recalcitrant official can be removed is designated the 'Recall.' And while I do not by any means believe the Initiative, the Referendum, and the Recall are the panacea for all our political ills, yet they do give to the electorate the power of action when desired, and they do place in the hands of The People the means by which they may protect themselves. I recommend to you, therefore, and I most strongly urge, that the first step in our design to preserve and perpetuate popular government shall be the adoption of the Initiative, the Referendum, and the Recall."

with the platforms of both the Democratic and the Republican parties.118 But The People of California had learned from experience that in a reform so important as the "Initiative," party platforms do not necessarily bind those who have been elected through party nominations.117 And, too, the opposition of the Republican organization, as well as of Democratic Senators at the session of 1909 had not been forgotten.118

At the 1909 session, the Progressives had not had the confidence to ask for the Referendum. They had asked for the Initiative only, and then made a further compromise by increasing the percentage of signatures of voters necessary to get a law before The People from 8 to 12 per cent.

The machine then defeated the amendment in the Senate by a vote of 20 for it to 15 against, 27 votes being necessary to submit it to The People. In the Assembly

116 The Democrats set forth in their State platform (1910), "We stand for the Initiative, Referendum and Recall."

The Republican platform recommended to the Legislature and the Governor "the submission to The People of Constitutional amendments, providing for direct legislation in the State and in the County and local governments, through the Initiative, Referendum and Recall."

117 At the Legislative session of 1909, for example, Senator Eddie Wolfe, who had had Labor Union party nomination, and who owed his election in no small degree to votes of union labor men, led the fight in the Senate against the Initiative. Senator Hartman, another Union Labor Senator, voted against the amendment. Senator Finn, also with a Union Labor nomination, was not on hand to vote when the 1909 amendment was considered. The Democrats through their party platform had declared for the Initiative, but when the measure came to a vote in the Senate, two prominent Democratic Senators, Miller and Curtin, voted against it. Curtin called the Initiative a "gold brick." Miller announced that his conscience would not permit him to vote for such a measure.

118 When the Initiative was before the Senate in 1909, Senator Willis of San Bernardino denounced it as revolutionary and unAmerican. "After this," cried Willis, "will come the Referendum and the Recall, and then God knows what."

the measure failed to get beyond the committee to which it had been referred.

So, somewhat discouraged, promoters of the direct legislation principle, seriously thought at one time of asking for an amendment providing for the initiation of amendments to the Constitution only. But with the election of Johnson, and the general defeat at the elections of those members of former Legislatures who had opposed the Initiative, all thought of compromise was forgotten, and a stand was taken not only for the "Initiative" and the "Referendum," but for the "Recall" also.

Following out the provisions of the Republican State platform, Chairman Meyer Lissner appointed a committee with Senator Lee Gates as chairman, to draft an Initiative and Referendum amendment, and a Recall amendment, to be submitted to the consideration of the Legislature. The Initiative and Referendum amendment adopted at the 1911 session was the direct result of the work of this committee, although the measure was modified in many respects after the Legislature convened, and before the measure was introduced in either House. The changes were made, in the main, at the suggestion of Senator Lee Gates of Los Angeles, Assemblyman William C. Clark of Alameda, and Mr. Milton T. U'Ren, secretary of the Direct Legislation League of California.119

The Initiative and Referendum amendment consid

119 The amendment as finally adopted reserves Initiative and Referendum powers to The People and provides the necessary machinery for using these powers so that the ratification of the amendment by The People will render the measure self-executing without the necessity of further action by the Legislature.

The measure provides that either a statutory law or an amendment to the Constitution shall be presented to The People for their adoption or rejection by a petition signed by qualified elec

« ForrigeFortsett »