thirds of the members elected to each of the two houses, although some states require a three-fifths vote, and recently there has been a tendency to require merely a majority vote.

Popular vote required for the adoption of amendments: As has already been indicated, the constitution of 1870 requires that a proposed amendment shall receive the votes of a majority of the electors voting at the next election of members of the general assembly. The constitution of 1818 on the other hand provided for adoption upon the vote of a majority of all the electors voting at the next general election for members of the house of representatives. The framers of the constitution of 1870 do not seem to have intended to make the adoption of a constitutional amendment by popular vote. more difficult, but such a result was actually accomplished by a slight change in phraseology.

The constitution of 1848 provided that amendments should be submitted at the next general election and "if a majority of all the electors voting at such election for members of the house of representatives shall vote for such amendment or amendments, the same shall become a part of the constitution." The constitution of 1870. provides that proposed amendments "shall be submitted to the electors of this state for adoption or rejection, at the next election of members of the general assembly, and if a majority of the electors voting at said election shall vote for the proposed amendments they shall become a part of this constitution". In view of the fact that the highest vote at a general election is apt to be larger than the votes for members of the general assembly, the constitution of 1870 under present voting methods imposes a higher standard of popular vote than did the constitution of 1848. However, this would probably not have been the case in 1870, and there was much plausibility in the contention. that the language of the two constitutions was intended to mean the same thing, although, narrowly construed, the language of the constitution of 1870 said something different from that of the constitution of 1848. This view was rejected by a divided court in People v. Stevenson.3

The form of ballot employed in Illinois at different periods has had a pronounced influence upon the result of popular voting. Before 1848 viva voce voting was permitted by the constitution of Illinois. Under this plan when the voter approached the polls he was asked not only to name his choice of candidates but also to vote "yes" or "no" Under the circumupon any measure that may have been pending.

stances it was easier to vote than to refuse to answer. This in part explains the fact that the vote in this state upon the question of calling a convention in 1824 was almost equal to the total vote cast for candidates at the same election.

The printed ballot has been in use in Illinois since 1848. Until 1891, however, the printing of ballots devolved upon political parties,

281 Ill. 17 (1917).

and the parties could either: (1) omit all mention of the proposed amendment from their ballots; (2) print the measure in such a way as to leave the voter an option to vote for or against it, or (3) to print either the affirmative or the negative of the measure. The third alternative was the one usually taken advantage of, and every straight party vote was therefore cast in accordance with the party action which appeared upon the ballot. Upon a ballot of this character it was easily possible to cast upon a measure substantially the same vote as that cast by regular voters upon candidates. For this reason the framers of the constitution of 1869-70 would probably have had little if any notion of difficulty being occasioned by the variation in language as to the popular majority required for the approval of constitutional amendments.

An official ballot act was adopted in 1891 and constitutional amendments were, during the period from 1891 to 1899, printed upon the official ballot for candidates with blank spaces for a vote upon either side of the question. During this period, with measures printed upon and usually at the bottom of the candidates ballot, less than twenty-five per cent of those voting in the elections expressed themselves upon measures. The party column ballot did not permit of any satisfactory adjustment for voting upon questions, and the only persons voting upon measures were those who searched out the measures upon the printed ballot. In 1899 legislation was enacted providing for a separate ballot for measures, and with a separate ballot the number of votes upon measures almost immediately doubled. The voters' attention was directly called to the measures being submitted, for the so-called "little ballot" for measures was handed to the voter, together with the ballot for candidates. It became as easy to vote upon the measures as to refrain from doing so.

Upon measures whose importance was not relatively different, it was easy to get out a large vote before 1891, impossible between 1891 and 1899, and difficult though not impossible since 1899.

Upon the constitutional amendment adopted in 1904 the requisite vote was obtained only after an expensive campaign. Upon the amendment of 1908 all parties were united and a vigorous campaign was conducted. Upon the proposed tax amendment of 1916 a vigorous campaign was conducted but this proposal failed, although the favorable vote was 656,298 as against 295,782. The favorable vote was not a majority of the total vote at the election, which was 1,343,381.

The matter here discussed is of course entirely unrelated to the terms of the constitution, but it indicates the extent to which ballot forms may determine the ease or difficulty of operating under a constitutional provision. In 1870 the popular vote required by the constitution would have been relatively easy to obtain upon almost any measure as to which the favorable sentiment was stronger than the opposition, and the same situation substantially continued until 1891. Between the years 1891 and 1899 it would have been practically impossible to adopt any constitutional change because of the ballot form then in use. Since 1899 a proposed constitutional amendment may be

adopted if public sentiment is sufficiently united and if a sufficiently vigorous campaign is made, although the chances even then are against the proposal.*

Constitutional convention under the constitution of 1870: Under the constitution of Illinois the following steps are necessary in order to obtain constitutional revision through a convention: (1) submission to the electors of the question as to whether a constitutional convention should be called, this submission requiring a vote (entered upon the journals thereof) of two-thirds of the members of each house; (2) vote for a convention by a majority of the electors voting at the next general election; (3) action by the next general assembly providing for a convention; (4) meeting of the convention within three months after the election of its members and the preparation of "such revision, alteration or amendments of the constitution as shall be deemed necessary"; (5) approval of such proposed changes by a majority of the electors voting at an election appointed by the convention for that purpose, not less than two nor more than six months after the adjournment of the convention.

Since 1909 a systematic and continuous effort has been made to obtain a constitutional convention in this state, and earlier attempts had been made beginning with the year 1884. It is difficult to obtain a vote of two-thirds of the members of each house, and equally difficult to obtain the approval of a majority of the electors voting at the next general election. However these difficulties were overcome in 1917 and 1918 and the general assembly by legislation in 1919 provided for the assembling of the constitutional convention of 1920.

The assembling of a constitutional convention should be a difficult task, if other and simpler methods are provided for the alteration of the constitution in specific cases. Although some changes in detail should be made in the present section of the Illinois constitution with respect to the assembling of a constitutional convention, there may be some question as to whether the assembling of such a convention should be made easier.

Relation between two methods of constitutional alteration: The chief difficulty with respect to the alteration of the constitution of 1870 is that both methods prescribed for constitutional change are difficult of operation. The process of specific amendment is necessarily the simpler, and the less expensive. This process should be employed for changes ordinarily desired, leaving the assembling of a convention for the less frequent and more serious task of re-examination of the whole of the constitutional text. However, the two methods of constitutional change now provided by the constitution of Illinois do

See Gardner, C. O., The working of the state-wide referendum in Illinois. American Political Science Review, V, 394 (1911)

Proposition.

not bear a proper relationship to each other, because the method of specific amendment is so difficult that constitutional revision of any important character must almost necessarily await the time when the need for change has become so serious as to force the assembling of a convention. The desirable results to be obtained from having two methods of constitutional alteration, the one simple and inexpensive, the other cumbersome and expensive, is, therefore, largely lost under the present constitutional provisions of Illinois.

Use of amending clause in Illinois since 1870: It is of course true that no constitutional convention has been assembled in Illinois between the years 1870 and 1920, and until 1909 no concerted and persistent effort had been made for the assembling of a constitutional convention.

However, the amending clause has been successfully employed seven times. During the period from 1892 to 1899 three proposed amendments were submitted. Upon the proposal submitted in 1892 for the amendment of the amending article, the negative vote was larger than the affirmative vote. Upon the proposed amendments of 1894 and 1896 and upon the proposed tax amendment of 1916 the affirmative vote was much greater than the negative vote. A table of amendments submitted is given below.

election.

Total

Percentage

of

affirmative

Eleven proposed amendments have been submitted since 1870 of which seven have been adopted and of which four have failed. Attention however should be called to the fact that five of the amendments which have been adopted were voted upon before the official ballot law of 1891. Of the six amendments submitted since that time one received a smaller affirmative than negative vote, two were adopted, and three failed of adoption because not obtaining a majority of all votes cast in the general election.

As has been suggested above, the provision regarding the submission of an amendment to but one article of the constitution at the same session has in many sessions occasioned deadlocks and has prevented the submission of proposed amendments. The submission of proposed amendments by the general assembly has also been discouraged by the knowledge that it would be very difficult to obtain the adoption of such amendments.

Suggested changes in details of present amending clause: A number of points in the present article for the alteration of the constitution require comment in connection with possible changes:

(a) Section 1 of Article XIV requires for the calling of a convention a majority vote at the next general election. Section 2 requires for the adoption of a proposed amendment "a majority of the electors voting" at the next election of members of the general assembly. This variation in language might easily have been construed to indicate a variation in intent, and this view was actually taken by two members of the Supreme Court in the case of People v. Stevenson, 281 Ill. 17 (1917). The language in these two sections should be made uniform or clarified although the decision of the Supreme Court has already by interpretation accomplished the result of clearing up any ambiguity.