Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:25:26.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Initiative, The Referendum, and The Recall: Recent Legislation in the United States1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Margaret A. Schaffner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

To make representative government more representative is the problem of today. The gradual process of social evolution has changed the industrial basis upon which our political institutions rest, and the increased complexity of our social organization has made the expression of the popular will more difficult. As readjustment to changing conditions is the requisite for any advancing type of life, so political progress becomes impossible unless new agencies are developed to be retained or discarded as experience may warrant.

Among the agencies for political expression, few have made more remarkable progress in the history of recent legislation than the initiative, the referendum, and the recall. State wide referendums for the adoption of State constitutional, and local referendums for local affairs, are familiar institutions in the United States, but it is only within recent years that our States have begun to adopt the initiative and the referendum for State legislation.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , November 1907 , pp. 32 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1907

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 South Dakota, Const. (amend. 1898), art. 3, sec. 1. Utah, Const. (amend. 1900), art. 6, secs. 1 and 22. Oregon, Const. (amend. 1902), art. 4, sec. 1. Nevada, Const. (amend. 1904), art. 19, secs. 1 and 2. Montana, Const. (amend. 1906), art. 5, sec. 1.

3 See State ex rel. Lavin et al. v. Bacon et al., 1901, 14 S. D., 394.

4 Oklahoma, Const. 1907, art. 5, secs. 1–8; art. 18, sec. 4a–5b; and art. 24, sec. 3.

5 Maine, Resolves, 1907, c. 121.

6 Missouri, Laws, 1907, p. 452–3.

7 Among the California cities which have secured the recall as a charter right are: Los Angles (Cal. Laws 1903, c. 6); San Diego (Cal. Laws 1905, c. 11); San Bernardino (Cal. Laws 1905, c. 15); Pasadena (Cal. Laws 1905, c. 20); Fresno (Cal. Laws 1905, c. 23); Santa Monica (Cal. Laws 1907, c. 6); Alameda (Cal. Laws 1907, c. 7); Long Beach (Cal. Laws 1907, c. 15); Riverside (Cal. Laws 1907, c. 25).

In Washington, Seattle secured the recall in 1906, and in 1907 the Spokane city council adopted an ordinance for the recall to be submitted to the people as a proposed amendment to the charter. Under c. 241, Laws 1907, provision is made for the recall in all cities of the second class. This includes cities having a population between 1500 and 10,000.

For Idaho, see Lewiston charter (Laws 1907, p. 349).

Des Moines adopted the recall under the Iowa Law (1907, c. 48) providing for the commission system of government.

In April, 1906, Grand Rapids, Mich., adopted the recall under the provisions of her new charter (Mich. Laws 1905, no. 593), establishing the initiative and referendum for charter amendments.

8 Davenport v. City of Los Angeles, et al., 1905, 146 Cal., 508; Good v. Common Council of City of San Diego, 1907, 90, p. 44. (Cal. App.)

Also compare Rex v. Richardson, 1758, 1 Burr, 517, in which it was held that “the power to remove a corporate officer from his office for reasonable and just cause is one of the common law incidents of all corporations.”

9 Good v. Common Council of the City of San Diego, 1907, 90, p. 44.

10 In re Pfahler, 1906, 88, p. 270.

11 Charter of Los Angeles, Cal. Laws 1903, c. 6.

12 Kadderly v. Portland, 1903, 44 Or., 118.

13 The Federalist, 302.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.