relatively small pluralities. These counties, with one exception (Gallia), are in the northern part of the state, where the constitutional amendments were carried by heavy majorities. On the other hand, in the sixteen counties in which either every amendment, or every amendment except the license proposal, was defeated, the Progressive candidates were overwhelmed. In no one of these counties did the Progressive party poll more than 23 per cent of the total vote; its average vote was 14.9 per cent, and in one county (Pickaway) it was 9 per cent. Evidently these remote rural communities were suspicious of new things, whether in state constitutions or in party platforms. Further than this it is hard to trace any connection between the two elections. The counties that supported President Taft (Athens, Clark, Clinton, Greene, Guernsey, Harrison, Jefferson, Lawrence, Meigs, Scioto, Warren and Madison) were for the most part rural; and while, on the whole, they were conservative as regards the amendments, they were not so invariably. They were certainly not the most conservative counties in that regard. Among the Wilson counties are found some that supported every amendment and others that rejected every amendment. On the whole, the connection between the constitutional election and the presidential campaign seems to have been rather slight. VI One of the most interesting questions raised by the referendum and one that it is well worth while to try to answer in studying the popular vote on the Ohio constitution of 1912, concerns the intelligence displayed in the acceptance or rejection of proposals. How clearly did the voters of Ohio understand what they were voting on? The task imposed on the citizen who wished to vote intelligently was no slight one. He must read the text of each amendment and some explanation or discussion of it. If he delayed his investigation until he reached the polls, he was confronted with thirty-six inches of fundamental political and economic problems. Could he vote upon them with coolness and wisdom then? In the Oregon election held two months later, fourteen amendments to the constitution and twenty-three laws were submitted to the voters. The official ballot contained about 2400 words of printed matter, in the way of titles explanatory of the thirty-seven proposals. From it the voter was able to get a fairly clear idea of the purpose and character of the measures proposed. The ballot which the Ohio electors used in voting on forty-two constitutional changes contained 240 words. Proposal number 39, for example, read: "Methods of submitting amendments to the constitution." A similar proposal appeared on Oregon's official ballot in the following form: "For amendment of section 1 of article xvii of the constitution, so as to require for the adoption of any proposed constitutional amendment a majority of all the electors voting at such election. instead of a majority of those voting on the amendment only." Obviously, the Ohio ballot was not designed to enlighten the voter. It was assumed that every citizen would inform himself concerning the forty-two proposals before coming to the polls. But a large percentage of the voters of Ohio waited for the ballot to give them the data necessary to form a judgment. The greatest blunder in conducting the revision of Ohio's constitution was made by those who determined the form of the constitutional ballot; and to this blunder may be ascribed most of the ignorant voting in the election. I In the first place, the ballot titles of many amendments were quite misleading. The proposal to legalize a three-fourths majority verdict in civil suits was hidden under the title: "Reform in civil jury system." Voters not in favor of this measure might well complain that the convention, by labeling its proposal a " reform," obtained votes under false pretences. The same charge was brought, very justly, against the title: "Welfare of employees." This was obviously an appeal to altruism and the sense of social justice, but there was nothing on the ballot to indicate that the purpose of the amendment was to empower the legislature to fix a minimum wage, to determine the number of working-hours and, in general, to regulate the relations between workingmen and their employers. 1 Committee on arrangement and phraseology. The work of this committee was, however, approved by the convention. In each of these instances the misleading title was adapted to secure votes for the amendment. In one case, however, the misleading title of a proposal seems to have been responsible for its defeat at the polls. This amendment read: "Women who are citizens may be appointed as notaries public, or as members of boards of, or to positions in, those departments and institutions established by the state or any political subdivision thereof, involving the interests or care of women or children or both." What possible objection could be urged against this proposal it is difficult to see. At any rate, none was urged even by those most strongly opposed to woman suffrage. On the ballot, however, this amendment was entitled: "Eligibility of women to certain offices." It was doubtless with visions of petticoated governors, judges and legislators that the voters of the state subjected this perfectly unobjectionable amendment to a stinging defeat.' The ballot titles of other amendments did not convey information enough even to mislead. To such amendments the ingenious and wary voters gave such interpretations as pleased them. One amendment was lost because of such a "blind" title. In the constitution of 1851 are found the words: "Every male white citizen of the United States . . . shall be entitled to vote at all elections." Although the force of the word "white" had been destroyed by the fifteenth amendment to the United States Constitution, the clause had remained unaltered, an irritant to the negroes of the state. There could be no reasonable opposition to eliminating the objectionable word. On the ballot this amendment bore the title: "Omitting the word 'white.'" This phrase conveyed to the mind of many voters a hazy impression that the change proposed, whatever it might be, would probably be of advantage to negroes. For this reason, probably, every county on the Kentucky border and the city of Cincinnati voted against it. The opposition to this amendment 1 At the time of writing, the lower house of the Ohio legislature has just endorsed this same amendment; there is promise that it will pass the upper house and be ratified by the people. was not confined, however, to any one locality. The country districts were more solidly against it than the cities, but even in the cities majorities which had carried other proposals over rural opposition shrank to narrow margins on this amendment. An election judge in one of the northern cities asserted that prominent business men, according to their own statements, had voted against the amendment because they "didn't want the niggers' to have any more rights than they have now." There were, furthermore, several ballot titles which, while suggesting a general proposition, gave no definite information about it. The suspicion with which many voters viewed these uncertain quantities appears when we compare the vote on "Methods of submitting amendments to the constitution" with that on the "Initiative and referendum." The former was designed to make it easier to amend the constitution; in place of a majority of the votes cast at the election, it required only a majority of the votes cast on the amendment. Precisely the same provision was inserted in the initiative and referendum amendment, which provided for the popular initiation of constitutional amendments as well as of laws. It is clear that a person who understood both proposals and who voted for the initiative and referendum amendment could not consistently vote against this easier method of amending the constitution; and yet the returns indicate that of those who voted for the former measure about 25,000 failed to vote on the latter and more than 15,000 voted against it.' Perhaps the most striking instance of unintelligent action is to be found in the vote on the schedule of amendments, which, strangely enough, was submitted as a separate proposition. It is inconceivable that any sane man who voted for even one amendment should desire the defeat of the schedule which was necessary to put that one amendment into effect. The voters of twenty-six counties, however, after having approved anywhere from one to twenty-five amendments, complacently |