The Initiative and Referendum Amendments in the Proposed Ohio Constitution

• Author: Robert Crosser
• DOI: 10.1177/000271621204300112
• Published date: 01 September 1912
• Date: 01 September 1912
• Subject Matter: Articles

THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM AMENDMENTS
IN THE PROPOSED OHIO CONSTITUTION
BY ROBERT CROSSER,
Chairman of the Committee on The Initiative and Referendum.
The Ohio Constitutional Convention, which finished its labors
on
June 7, 1912, has provided, among other things, for the submission
to the voters of an amendment to the constitution establishing the
initiative and referendum as a part of the fundamental law of the
state.
In the campaign of 1911 for the election of delegates to
the constitutional convention, the chief issue was the initiative
and referendum, and the result of the November election showed a
clear majority in favor of the proposition. The victory seemed so
decisive that one of the most prominent initiative and referendum
men of the state declared at a public meeting that there would not
be enough opposition in the convention to make an interesting fight.
The writer, who had &dquo;fathered&dquo; a municipal initiative and referen-
dum
bill in the seventy-ninth general assembly, had had some unpleas-
ant experiences with certain avowed initiative and referendum mem-
bers, and was, therefore, not so much inclined to enthuse at the
prospects in the constitutional convention as the gentleman who had
expressed himself so confidently. Events proved the latter’s confi-
dence unwarranted.
When the convention organized I was made chairman of the ini-
tiative and referendum committee, and introduced in the convention
the proposal upon the initiative and referendum. I was, therefore,
in a position to learn very early in the session that, while there
are many who avow themselves to be believers in the initiative and
referendum, there are not so many who are enthusiastic about it.
Finding it practically impossible to make any valid objection to
the principle of the initiative and referendum, the opposition
endeavored to make it difficult for the people to make use of the
initiative and referendum if adopted.
I shall here briefly state the more important provisions of
the proposal as originally drafted, also the chief feature of the amend-
191)

---

192
ment as finally passed by the convention, and shall state as fairly
as possible the arguments made for and against the change.
The proposal, as originally introduced, provided that if at
any time, not less than ninety days prior to any regular election,
a petition signed by eighty thousand electors proposing an amend-
ment to the constitution, should be filed with the secretary of state,
the proposed amendment must be submitted at the next regular
election by the secretary of state to the electors for their approval
or rejection.
In like manner a petition signed by sixty thousand
electors, proposing a law, if filed with the secretary of state not
later than ninety days before any annual election, would require
the submission of such proposed law at such election by the secretary
of state to the electors for their approval or rejection.
The referendum section of the proposal provided, with certain
exceptions to be noted later, that no law passed by the general
assembly should go into effect until the expiration of ninety days
after the final adjournment of the session of the general assembly
which passed the same. If a petition signed by fifty thousand elec-
tors of the state were filed with the secretary of state within ninety
days after the final adjournment of the session of the general assembly
which passed any law, ordering that such law or any item, section
or part of such law be submitted to the voters of the state for their
approval or rejection, it then became the duty of the secretary of
state to submit such law or item, section or part of such law to the
electors of the state for their approval or rejection at the next annual
election, and it would not go into effect unless approved by a majority
of those voting on the same. The filing of a referendum petition
against any item, section or part of any law would not, however,
prevent or delay the remainder from going into effect.
According to the original proposal, certain acts would go into
immediate effect, should the same receive a vote of three-fourths
of all the members elected to each branch of the general assembly.
These were acts providing for tax levies, appropriations for the
current expenses of the state, and other emergency measures neces-
sary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health
or safety.
Nevertheless, a referendum petition might be filed
upon any such emergency law in the same manner as upon other laws,
but such law would remain in effect until the same had been voted
upon, and, if it were then rejected by a majority of those voting

---

193
upon the same, it would cease to be law. The amendment as passed
by the convention does not permit a referendum upon this class of
laws.
The original draft provided that the initiative and referendum
powers were reserved to the electors of each political subdivision
of the state, to be exercised in the manner to be provided by law.
As finally passed by the convention, the only political subdivisions
specifically given these powers are municipalities.
The general provisions of the proposal, as originally presented
by me to the convention for discussion, are practically identical
with the general provisions of the amendment as finally adopted
by the convention. We shall, therefore, postpone their considera-
tion, and now discuss the material changes made by the convention
as evidenced by the amendment finally adopted.
First of all, a majority of the convention determined to change
from the plan requiring a &dquo;fixed&dquo; number of signatures to initiative
and referendum petitions, the majority deciding that a percentage
basis was proper and desirable. Several delegates, including the
writer, earnestly advocated the fixed number plan as being the only
sound one, and here, trivial as this difference may seem, was the
...