Maine's Experience With the Initiative and Referendum
| DOI | 10.1177/000271621204300110 |
| Author | J. William Black |
| Published date | 01 September 1912 |
| Date | 01 September 1912 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
(159)
MAINE’S
EXPERIENCE
WITH
THE
INITIATIVE
AND
REFERENDUM
BY
J.
WILLIAM
BLACK,
PH.D.,
Professor
of
History,
Colby
College,
Waterville,
Maine.
As
the
result
of
an
agitation
of
several
years
standing,
and
in
response
to
the
petitions
of
a
number
of
towns
in
&dquo;The
District of
l~Taine,&dquo;
as
that
portion
of
Massachusetts
now
comprising
the
State
of
Maine
was
then
known,
the
General
Court
of
Massachusetts,
on
June
19,
1819,
passed
an
act,
entitled
the &dquo;Articles
of
Separation,&dquo;
giving
the
people
of
Maine
the
privilege
of
voting
upon
the
propo-
sition
of
separating
from
Massachusetts
and
forming &dquo;a
separate
and
independent
government
within
said
district.&dquo;
At
a
special
election
held
in
Maine
in
July
of
the
same
year,
in
accordance
with
the
pro-
visions
of
the
articles
of
separation,
the
people
voted
by
a
large
majority
to
separate,
and
in
the
following
October
held
a
convention
in
Portland
and
framed
a
constitution
for
the
proposed
new
state.
Massachusetts
confirmed
this
procedure,
February
25,
1820,
by
the
passage
of
the
act
of
cession,
in
which
the
general
court
formally
consented
to
the
creation
of
a
separate
state
in
&dquo;The
District
of
Maine;&dquo;
and
an
act
of
congress,
passed
March
3,
1820,
admitted
Maine
to
statehood
and
decreed
that
the
recognition
of
Maine
as
a
state
in
the
Union
should
date
from
March
15,
1820.
The
constitution,
which
was
adopted
in
1819,
has
served
the
state
ever
since
as
its
fundamental
and
organic
law,
without
radical
change
or
without
the
calling
of
subsequent
constitutional
con-
ventions.
Changes
in
the
constitution
have
been
made,
however,
through
the process
of
amendment,
twelve
such
amendments
being
added
between
1819
and
1875.
In
the
latter
year,
the
governor
of
the
state,
in
lieu
of
the
calling
of
a
convention,
and
by
the
author-
ity
of
the
legislature,
appointed
a
constitutional
commission
to
recommend
further
changes
in
the
constitution.
This
commission
proposed
a
number
of
amendments,
and
of
this
number
nine
were
adopted
by
the
people
in
the
annual
election
of
September,
1875.
The
nine
amendments,
together
with
the
twelve
previously
adopted,
160
were
incorporated
by
the
chief
justice
of
the
state,
acting
under
the
authority
of
the
legislature,
into
the
body
of
the
constitution,
and
the
instrument
in
its
revised
form
was
approved
by
the
legis-
lature,
February
23,
1876,
and
became
forthwith
&dquo;the
supreme
law
of
the
state.&dquo;
By
such
procedure
a
revised
constitution
was
secured
without
the
trouble,
expense,
and
delay
incident
to
the
calling
of
a
constitutional
convention.
Since
1876,
thirteen
other
amendments
have
been
added
to
the
constitution,
including
the
change
from
annual
to
biennial
elections
in
1879,
the
prohibitory
amendment
in
1884,
and
the
referendum
law
of
1909.
In
the
adoption
of
all
these
amendments,
the
method
prescribed
in
the
constitution
(art.
x,
sec.
2)
has
been
followed;
that
is,
the
amendments
were
first
passed
by
a
two-thirds
vote
of
both
houses
of
the
legislature,
and
then
submitted
to
the
people
of
the
several
towns
throughout
the
state
who
ratified
the
amendment
by
a
majority
vote.
In
1875,
a
new
amendment
was
incorporated
in
the
constitu-
tion
(amendment
xix),1
which,
for
the
first
time
authorized
the
legislature &dquo;by
a
two-thirds
concurrent
vote
of
both
branches,&dquo;
...
to
call
constitutional
conventions,
for
the
purpose
of
amend-
ing
the
constitution.
No
use
has
yet
been
made
of
this
constitutional
amendment,
in
spite
of
the
fact
that
the
constitution
is
now
more
or
less
a
piece
of
patchwork,
due
to
numerous
amendments,
and
should
be
sub-
jected
to
a
thorough
revision
and
rearrangement.
One
great
obstacle
that
stands
in
the
way
of
the
calling
of
a
constitutional
convention
is
the
constant
fear
on
the
part
of
a
considerable
portion
of
the
people
that
such
a
revision
would
result
in
the
reading
out
of
the
constitution
of
the
prohibitory
law-a
condition
that
has
proved
a
barrier
to
progressive
legislation
in
the
State
of
Maine.
Maine
has
felt
the
influence
of
the
agitation
for
direct
legis-
lation
which
has
spread
with
great
rapidity
over
the
country
from
west
to
east,
and
which
began
with
the
action
of
the
people
of
South
Dakota,
who
were
the
first
to
incorporate
the
initiative
and
refer-
endum
in their
state
constitution
as
early
as
November,
1898.
The
example
of
South
Dakota
was
followed
in
1900
by
Utah,
and
again
in
1902,
by
Oregon,
where
the
new
legislation
has
had
its
best
and
1
Now
article
iv,
part
third,
section
15.
To continue reading
Request your trial