WASHINGTON'S FIRST EXPERIMENT IN DIRECT

A

LEGISLATION

T the general election of 1914 the electors of the state of Washington had an opportunity to use for the first

time their newly-adopted devices for direct legislation. At the regular session of the state legislature in 1911 there was formulated and adopted a resolution proposing to the electorate an amendment to the constitution making possible the use of the initiative petition and the referendum as a means of legislation. At the general election of 1912 the amendment was adopted.

In the initiative device there was provided a double scheme. In the first place there was the customary method of securing a place on the ballot for a measure proposed by petition and backed by a sufficient number of voters. "Ten per centum, but in no case more than fifty thousand, of the legal voters shall be required to propose any measure by such petition." These petitions should be filed with the secretary of state not less than four months before the election at which they were to be voted on. The second provision was for a mandate to the legislature; if a petition, with the requisite signatures, were filed not less than ten days before the regular session of the legislature, the same should be transmitted by the secretary of state to the legislature, there to take precedence over all matters except appropriation bills. If the legislature enacted the proposed measure it should become a law under the same conditions as any other act, except that it must in any case be subject to a referendum, or the legislature might refer it to the electorate upon its own initiative. If, however, the proposed measure were rejected or not acted upon, it went automatically upon the ballot for decision at the polls. Moreover, the legislative body had the option of framing a substitute measure embodying the same general principle, in which case both the measures should go upon the ballot. In the latter event voters should indicate by one mark their approval or disapproval of the general principle, and by another, if it were approval, their preference be

tween the two. If a majority voted in the affirmative on the first proposition, the measure receiving the larger number of votes was to become a portion of the law of the state. If the general principle failed to secure a majority of votes cast, both measures would fail, but both sets of votes should be canvassed and made public. No provision was made whereby amendments to the constitution might be proposed by initiative petition.

Petitions for the reference of any act of the legislature must receive thirty thousand signatures, at most, or six per cent of the total number of voters registered. Except for the proportion of signatures to the total number of registered voters, there is nothing to note in the device for the referendum as it appears in Washington.

At the 1913 session of the legislature an act provided in detail for the working of the constitutional amendment. Briefly the steps may be thus enumerated.

Measures to be submitted to the electorate by initiative petition must be filed, not earlier than ten months before the election, with the secretary of state, who must transmit the same to the attorney-general to formulate, in not more than one hundred words, a suitable title expressing the true intent of the proposed bill. Provision is made for a hearing by the superior court of Thurston county (in which Olympia, the seat of state government, is located) on the suitability of the title, in case the proponents deem the same inadequate in any manner, and the decision of this court is final. When the title has been determined the same is sent to the proponents, who then may proceed to secure the requisite number of signatures.

After the blanks, printed in approved form, have been signed they are filed with the officer having charge of the registration books, who proceeds to check the signatures against his list of voters and to place his initials beside those names which he finds in his books. Thereupon the petitions are filed with the secretary of state.

1 Since voters outside incorporated places do not register, marking of signatures as legal devolves upon justices of the peace, road supervisors, members of the school board, or postmasters; with the exception of the last these officials are required to examine and initial the lists.

237 The secretary of state exercises his discretion in receiving petitions, but the superior court of Thurston county may, by mandate, compel him to do so. He has the sheets of signatures bound into convenient volumes and then proceeds to canvass and count the legal signatures. If he finds a number sufficient to fulfill the requirements of the law, he certifies to the fact and retains the documents in the archives of the state, transmitting the measure to the legislature when it convenes, or forwards the title to the various county auditors for placing upon the ballot for the election.

If the proponents of the measure are dissatisfied with the determination of the secretary of state regarding the number of legal signatures, they may apply to the superior court "for a citation requiring the secretary of state to submit said petitions to said court for examination, and for a writ of mandate compelling the certification of the measure and petition, or for an injunction to prevent the certification thereof to the legislature, as the case may be, which application and all proceedings had thereunder shall be speedily heard and determined." While no appeal may be allowed from the decision of the superior court, such decision may be reviewed by the supreme court on a writ of certiorari sued out within five days of the rendering of the decision, and this court may compel the secretary of state to issue the certification if the facts warrant.

Details of the law regulating the proceedings with initiative petitions have been stated because the measures submitted to the electorate in 1914 brought into action practically every step which had been provided.

A consideration of the direct legislation of 1914 falls under three main headings: (1) the measures themselves, with the circumstances of their submission; (2) the legal steps involved in placing them upon the ballot; and (3) an analysis of the vote given in November.

I

The measures appearing on the ballot fall into the following groups: (1) seven measures submitted by initiative petition; (2) two bills referred by the legislature, and (3) one amendment to

the constitution proposed by the legislature to the electorate.' The initiated measures may be further subdivided into three groups: (1) five proposed by a joint legislative committee of the Grange, the Farmers' Union, and the State Federation of Labor; (2) one, for state-wide prohibition of the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages, proposed by the forces which have been active in many of our states for such action; and (3) a bill for an eight-hour day proposed by certain elements in the labor group of the state.

Not long after the close of the session of the legislature in 1913, the joint legislative committee referred to, which had been active in its efforts with the legislative body, began proceedings to "initiate" the measures which they had failed to have enacted into law through the customary channels. The result of their activities was the filing with the secretary of state of seven proposals, popularly known as the "Seven Sisters." These were (1) a "Blue Sky" bill, (2) a measure to abolish the State Bureau of Supervision and Inspection, (3) one to prohibit employment agencies from taking fees from workers, (4) a First-Aid measure (to fill an acknowledged lack in the Industrial Insurance Act of 1911), (5) a measure to employ convicts on the public highways of the state, (6) a comprehensive measure regulating and taxing the fisheries of the state, and, (7) a proposal to abolish the State Tax Commission and vest its duties in the Public Service Commission.

The "Blue Sky" measure was an attempt to secure a law analogous to similar measures in such states as Kansas and Oregon. It defined an investment company and would have placed all such organizations under the supervision of the Public Service Commission, to the end that investors might be protected from wildcat companies and all sorts of "get-rich-quick" schemes. It was to have been within the province of the Commission to examine into all proposed organizations and to prevent their doing business within the state if it appeared that their proposed plan of business was not "fair, just, and equitable," or if they did "not intend to do a fair and honest busi

1 The original constitution, of course, provided for the submission of all amendments to the electorate.

239 ness." Moreover, there could be revoked the charter of any corporation engaged in offering "securities, or promoting, platting or selling town-sites or other subdivisions of real property in this state, or elsewhere" and "conducting its business dishonestly, unjustly or unfairly to its members, stockholders, contributors or purchasers of securities or real property." The Commission was to have power to investigate all organizations doing business of the nature which would come under the provisions of the act. Undoubtedly there is need, not alone in Washington, of curtailing the activities of companies, the chief purpose of which is to enrich the promoters at the expense of a gullible public. Any steps, however, in this direction, involve a highly technical knowledge of business organization and management to the end that legitimate transactions may not be hampered while those of a questionable character may be prosecuted with vigor. The proposed act seemed to indicate that its framers were not altogether of that class of technically informed men, and it is the opinion of those competent to judge that this measure would have made little difference in the actual conditions now existing under law already on the statute books. On the other hand the looseness of the phraseology could not fail to have provoked endless litigation. In brief, this measure falls in the class of those so technical that experts must frame the bill, and the provisions are such as to be beyond the comprehension of more than a few of the voting population. An intelligent vote, then, was practically impossible, and those who gave their assent to the measure must have been, in considerable degree, actuated by a blind desire to hit at an indefinable evil which was felt but not understood.

The proposed bill abolishing the State Bureau of Supervision and Inspection of Public Offices related to a commission formed by law a few years ago. To this bureau was entrusted the task of investigating the books of all kinds of public offices wherein. public moneys were collected or expended. In particular it was to ascertain whether or not the law had been complied with in matters of indebtedness, forms of warrants, and the like; it had power to audit the books of all such offices and to advise changes in the method of keeping such books. The activities