adopted rather extensively in the states and cities of the United States. Through the initiative a specified number of voters may draft a law and obtain a popular vote on the law without recourse to the legislature. In contrast to the referendum, which is negative in character, the initiative is positive. The purpose of the former is to nullify objectionable acts passed by the legislature, the latter is designed to pass acts which the majority of the electcrate desires, regardless of the sentiment of the legislature.

The initiative may be used in two distinct ways-the direct method and the indirect. Under the direct method the voters decide directly upon the measure. Under the indirect initiative the act is sent first to the legislature, and if passed without change by that body, it becomes a law; but if the action of the legislature is unfavorable, the measure is returned to the electorate for final action. Both forms of the initiative are used in amending state constitutions as well as in the enacting of statutory law.

In a majority of the states when a measure is proposed by popular petition, it then goes directly to the voters. The procedure in other states with the indirect initiative varies. South Dakota requires that an initiative measure

be forwarded to the legislature and through the legislature submitted to the voters. Maine, Nevada, and Michigan have an indirect initiative under which measures proposed by petition must be submitted to the legislature. The legislature may accept or reject the measure without change or may submit a competing or substitute proposal to the voters. Certain states permit a choice of either the direct or indirect method requiring, as a rule, a higher percentage of voters on the petition to submit directly to the electorate.1

In some commonwealths, the initiative is used not to the exclusion of action by the legislature, but simply to supplement it. The specifications as to the number of signers to the petitions, as to the relations of the legislatures to the initiative, as to the time within which action must be taken, all these and other details differ greatly among the various states, as is the case with the referendum.

Recall. To the initiative and referendum as devices to secure popular control of government is frequently added the recall. This is a provision whereby a certain percentage of the voters may demand the recall of an elective officer or may require him to submit to the test of a new election. The recall is based on the idea that an officer is an agent of the public and that he can be turned out if a majority of the voters disapprove his conduct. There are two chief functions of the recall. In the first place, it provides a means by which the electorate may remove an official whose discharge of the duties of his office does not meet with their approval. And in the second place, the recall assists, as it has been aptly stated, "the officeholder in retaining a candidate's frame of mind," helps him to remember pre-election promises, and causes him to be alert as to the wishes of his constituents. The recall is conducted through a petition, similar to the procedure for the

1 Illinois Constitutional Convention Bulletins (1920), no. 2, "The Initiative, Referendum, and Recall," pp. 84-85.

initiative and referendum, while the number of signatures, the content of the petition, the time of filing, the recall election, and the manner of recourse to the latter vary in different states. Very little use has been made of the recall, and most of the discussion has centered around the advisability of applying this remedy to the office of a judge. As a rule, the recall is applied only to legislative and executive officers, but Oregon and a few other states have extended the provision to judicial officers, and Colorado has applied the principle to judicial decisions on constitutional questions, rendering it possible for a majority of the voters to overrule the supreme court of the state on a constitutional issue.

25%

Not to apply to judicial officers. No law yet enacted.

Colorado.

Except judges.

25% and 35%

Except judges.

25%

Every public officer holding 10%

either by election or appoint-15%

Louisiana... 1914

ment.
Except judges.

25%

25%

Results of the Referendum, Initiative, and Recall.-While the states are moving somewhat slowly in the adoption of these democratic devices, the initiative, referendum, and recall have so commended themselves to the general public that they may be looked upon as satisfactory features of the plan to render popular government effective.

1 Illinois Constitutional Convention Bulletins (1920), no. 2, p. 120.

In Switzerland, where the initiative has been in use for many years, there is a good opportunity to see the results of this device. The initiative on constitutional questions has been used rather infrequently. Since 1874 ten attempts were made to amend the constitution by the initiative, of which only three were successful.1

Earlier writers on the Swiss initiative [says Professor Brooks], have been too much inclined to condemn the institution because of the uses to which it was put during the first years of its existence. . . . Whatever grounds for criticism may be afforded by the earlier experiences of the Swiss with the initiative, it seems to have justified itself from 1900 on. The measures submitted during the latter period were moderate and progressive. Those which failed laid an educational foundation for reforms which are likely to be made in the not distant future, while the two successful amendments represent substantial achievement. The permanence of the present constitutional initiative is assured, and there is considerable advocacy of the proposition to extend it to the enactment of ordinary federal legislation.2

In the cantons, only fifteen measures have been passed in eighteen cantons in a period of twenty years, or less than one measure per canton.

From 1874 to 1917 thirty-one legislative projects were referred to the voters of the Swiss Republic. Of these nineteen were rejected and twelve approved. The general result of

1 List of Swiss Constitutional Amendments submitted by Initiative 18741917:

1880, Total revision in order to create bank-note monopoly. Rejected. 1893, Method of slaughtering animals. Accepted.

1894, Right to work, duty of state to provide employment. Rejected. 1894, Dividing part of Federal customs revenue among cantons. Rejected. 1900, Election of National Council by proportional representation. Rejected.

1900, Election of Federal Council by popular vote, increasing its membership to nine. Rejected.

1903, Basing apportionment of National Council on citizen population exclusively. Rejected.

1908, Prohibiting absinthe. Accepted.

1908, Federal regulation of water power. Accepted.

1910, Election of National Council by proportional representation.

From Government and Politics of Switzerland, by R. C. Brooks (copyright, 1918, by World Book Company, Yonkers-on-Hudson, New York), pp. 145–6. Used by permission of the publishers. 2 Ibid., pp. 147, 152.

direct legislation in Switzerland is that it "has not realized all the extravagant anticipations of its friends. But on the other hand it has completely falsified the dismal prophecies of chaos and revolution uttered by the conservatives of an earlier period. It has become a vital and freely functioning part of the Swiss political organism." Switzerland was

the only nation to submit to a referendum the question of joining the League of Nations. After a vigorous campaign by both advocates and opponents of the League the proposal to join was carried by a vote of 415,819 for to 323,225 against, with about 76 per cent of the voters participating.

In the United States the compulsory referendum upon constitutional questions and the voluntary reference of measures by petition result in the submission to the voters of a large number of proposed laws. The extent of such submissions may be indicated by the following tables:

(a) Three of these held not adopted by Supreme Court.
(b) One of these held not adopted by Supreme Court.

1Robert C. Brooks, Government and Politics in Switzerland (The World Book Company, 1918), p. 164.

2 Illinois Constitutional Convention Bulletins (1920), no. 2, pp. 102-103.