SUGGESTIONS LIKELY TO BE MADE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE, ARRANGED BY ARTICLES AND SECTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1870 Art. II, Art. II, Sec. 1. Art. II, Art. II, Art. II, Art. II, Art. II, Art. II, PREAMBLE. No change suggested. ARTICLE I-BOUNDARIES. No change suggested. ARTICLE II-BILL OF RIGHTS. No change suggested. Sec. 2. Duplicates limitation upon states in Fourteenth Sec. 3. See also Art. VIII, Sec. 3. Change may be Sec. 4. No change suggested. Sec. 5. See also Article II, Sec. 9 and 13; Art. XI, (a) For less than unanimous verdict in civil cases; (b) For jury trial in civil cases only upon demand of parties; (c) For omission of words "as heretofore enjoyed"; (d) Trial by jury in injunction cases. Sec. 6. 6. No change suggested. Sec. 7. No change suggested. Sec. 8. Suggestions: (a) That Constitution provide for use of information except when judge desires a grand jury; (b) That General Assembly be permitted to do away with use of grand jury in such classes of cases as it deems wise. Sec. 9. Suggestions: (a) Less than unanimous jury in non-capital cases; (b) Permitting waiver of jury trial in cases of felony. See Paulsen v. People, 195 Ill. 507 (1902). Art. II, Art. II, Art. II, Art. II, Art. II, Art. II, Art. II, Sec. 10. Suggestion that comment be permitted upon failure of accused to testify in his own behalf. Sec. 11. Suggestion that capital punishment be abolished by constitutional provision. Sec. 12. No change suggested. Sec. 13. See also Art. II,. Sec. 5; Art. IV, Sec. 30, 31; (a) That eminent domain provisions of constitution be grouped together; (b) That other methods of ascertaining compensation than by jury be permitted; (c) That constitution be altered to meet situation raised by case of South Park Commissioners vs. Montgomery Ward & Co., 248 Ill. 299 (1911); (d) That excess condemnation be permitted; (e) That the term "public use" be enlarged to permit eminent domain for preserving public improvements, for housing projects, etc. For earlier enlargements of term see Art. IV, Sec. 30, 31. Sec. 14. Prohibitions with respect to ex post facto laws Sec. 15. No change suggested. See Art. XII. Sec. 18. No change suggested. See Art. VII. Art. II, Art. II, Art. II, Art. II. Sec. 20. No change suggested. Art. III, Art. IV, Art. IV, ARTICLE III-DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS. No change suggested. Article is so worded as not to require change, even though present constitutional distribution of powers be altered. ARTICLE IV-LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Sec. 1. Suggestions. (a) Single chambered legislature. (b) Initiative and Referendum; (c) Proportional representation for election of one or both houses. Sec. 2. No change suggested, unless dates be altered. Art. IV, Art. IV, Art. IV, Art. IV, Art. IV, Art. IV, Art. IV, Art. IV, Art. IV, Art. IV, Art. IV, Sec. 3. Suggestions will be made that to bring coopera- Secs. 6, 7, 8. Suggestions: (a) Limitation of Cook County representation; (b) Abolition of cumulative voting. See also Art. XI, Sec. 3; (c) Exception of primary elections from operation of cumulative voting; (d) Single districts for election of house of repreentatives; (e) Proportional representation. Sec. 9. Suggestions: (a) Limitation of session; (b) Recess after brief period for introduction of bills; (c) For office of Lieutenant Governor. See Art. V, Secs. 1, 3, 5, 17-19. Sec. 10. No change suggested. Sec. 11. Modification necessary if initiative and referen dum adopted. Sec. 12. No change suggested. Sec. 13. Suggestions: (a) Three Readings at large: Not now observed and not necessary. (b) Printing before Final Passage: Largely disregarded until 1915. Now merely a matter of formal journal entry. (c) Not more than one subject expressed in title: Useful and has made little difficulty. (d) Amendment by reference: As now interpreted, provides a difficult rule with little real advantage. Produces (e) Time of Taking Effect of Laws: now a three-months period in which laws are in force but their text not available. Sec. 14. No change suggested. Sec. 15. See comment under Art. IV, Sec. 3. Suggestions: (a) As interpreted by Supreme Court in Fergus v. Russel, 270 Ill. 304 (1915) may be construed to prevent recess commissions; (b) Provisions regarding interest in contracts may also be found in Art. IV, Sec. 25 and Art. VIII, Sec. 4. Art. IV, Art. IV, Art. IV, Art. IV, Art. IV, Art. IV, Art. IV These provisions should be brought together and so worded as to include all officers and employes of the state. Sec. 16. Suggestions: (a) Appropriations in Private Law. See decision in Fergus v. Russel, 277 Ill. 20 (1917). This provision should be considered in relation to that in Article IV, Sec. 26, prohibiting suits against the State. (b) Separate Bill for salaries of Officers. Should be read with Art. V, Sec. 24. Intended to prevent riders on appropriation bills, but does not do this, and forces appropriations for each office into two artificial parts. Fergus v. Russel, 270 Ill. 304. Sec. 17. No change suggested. Sec. 18. Suggestions: (a) With present length of legislative session, seems to require a two years and three months period, with overlapping three months for appropriations. This is an unsatisfactory arrangement which is partially met by laws of 1919, page 951, Sec. 25; (b) Popular vote should be considered with that of Art. IV, Sec. 33; Art. XI, Sec. 5; Art. XIV, Sec. 1, 2; and separate Section on Canals. (c) Increase of amount authorized to meet casual deficits. Sec. 19. Confusion as to what is "express authority of Sec. 20. See separate section on canals. Sec. 21. Suggestions: No change (a) As to increasing compensation, one clause should replace provisions now repeated in Art. IV, Sec. 21, 22, clause 20; Art. V, Sec. 23; Art. VI, Sec. 7, 16, 25; Art. IX, Sec. 11; Art. X, Sec. 10. See also Art. IV, Sec. 19. (b) Permission for weekly mileage will be suggested. (c) Additional compensation for Speaker of House of Representatives will also be suggested. Sec. 22. See also Art. IV, Sec. 16; Art. VI, Secs. 21, 29; Art. IX, Sec. 3; Art. X, Secs. 5, 11; Art. XI, Sec. 1; Suggestions. (a) Limitations upon special legislation are now scattered throughout the Constitution and some effort should be made to bring them together; (b) The provision here as to "special and exclusive privileges, immunities or franchises" duplicates the Federal guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" and is prob Art. IV, Art. IV, Art. IV, Art. IV, Art. IV, Art. IV, Art. IV, Art. IV, Art. IV, ably even broader as interpreted by the Illinois Supreme Court; See comment under Art. II, Sec. 2. (c) The plan may be suggested of substituting the Michigan scheme for control of special legislation. The Michigan scheme involves a determination by the court as to when a general law can be made applicable, and a local referendum upon any special law of local application. Sec. 23. No change suggested. Sec. 24. See also Art. V, Sec. 15, and Art. VI, Sec. 30. (a) The recall of officers may be suggested. (b) An enlarged executive power of removal will be suggested, although if the short ballot is adopted this would bring such enlarged executive power automatically. Sec. 25. Suggestions: (a) Provision regarding fuel, stationery, etc., has been of little value and its omission will be suggested; (b) As to interest in contracts, provisions should be brought together. See Art. IV, Sec. 15. Sec. 26. Has not worked satisfactorily, and effort may Sec. 27. No change suggested. Sec. 29. See Separate Section on Convict Labor adopted Sec. 30. A grant of power for the purpose of overcoming an earlier judicial decision. Should be read with Art. II, Sec. 13. Sec. 31. As amended, 1878, because of judicial decision. denying power to use special assessments for drainage. purposes. Unnecessary if special assessment provision is enlarged and if nothing is done elsewhere to deny powers expressed. See Art. IX, Sec. 9. Sec. 32. No change suggested. Sec. 33. Partly obsolete provision regarding popular vote should be harmonized with other provisions in con |