Clearly the voters of Oregon take a considerable interest in the exercise of the franchise, which is increasing as the importance of their determinations becomes manifest. For some time before an election discussion of measures to be voted on is rife on the street, in conversation among friends, everywhere. It is part of the regular program in grange halls and labor union councils, and to some extent in clubs and associations of every sort. The newspapers are full of it. The pamphlets published by the state and distributed to every voter, wherein arguments pro and con are set forth, are seen almost like autumn leaves in Vallombrosa. The discussion even invades those circles where the 'tired business man' myth, and the indifference of the ordinary successful American to everything but putting money in his purse and spending it, combine against it.97

The claim, then, that the initiative and referendum prevent deliberation is said to be clearly wrong. Indeed, the Oregon voter has many months in which to acquaint himself with the nature of measures submitted for his consideration -more time than he has for familiarizing himself with the candidates for State and national offices. There is no haste at all under the new régime: it has even been called the most deliberative of all our governmental processes, for initiated bills are deliberately drafted to insure clearness and success; petitions are circulated and generally deliberately signed by the required percentage of voters; and measures are then printed with arguments and sent to each voter months before the election at which their fate will be decided. Indeed, the idea of being responsible for each law placed upon the statute book appeals more to the voter's imagination than voting for the proper representative: the Oregon system is therefore the greatest school of political thought in the country. With a little original, independent thinking the voter can more easily determine whether

the general purpose and intent of a measure is acceptable than whether a candidate's professions are genuine. To quote Mr. Montague again:98

The educative effect of the discussion of a matter of public interest, generally participated in, with audience for everybody who has anything to say and with everybody who cares to think about it having a voice in the result, followed by a sound decision, simply cannot be exaggerated. It removes the ultimate ground of complaint from the mouth of discontent and brings the responsibility for the state of law home to the will and intelligence of every voter.

Have the voters of Oregon and Switzerland voted intelligently and conservatively? Champions of direct legislation point to the record: long ballots do not seem to have bewildered the voters, and thus far revolutionary measures have not been enacted. Switzerland has come to be called a conservative democracy, and Oregon statistics "give evidence of that patience and conservatism which Dr. Eliot predicates of democracy in America."'" What the people of the initiative and referendum States have done can best be gathered from consulting the statutes enacted by them in recent years: it is a record which justifies itself.100

The fact that usually a smaller vote is cast for measures than for candidates is urged as an evidence of "minority rule". The reformers explain that the smallness of the vote does not necessarily indicate lack of interest but a high degree of intelligence on the part of the voters. Actual intelligence is now brought to bear upon measures and blind political affiliation still prevails in the voting upon candidates. Oregon voters are not now merely going through the motions of government. To be sure, in all the direct legislation States, of the one

hundred voters who cast their ballots for candidates, very often less than seventy-five express their opinions on bills; but important measures of State-wide interest ordinarily receive a large vote and the result represents a real popular judgment.

Compulsory voting is no solution of the problem of non-voting: advocates of the initiative and referendum cry out against dragging incompetents to the polls, and prefer to let the unintelligent, unfit, and uninterested voters entirely alone, because present conditions are all that could be desired, and "no practical bad results from the deficiency of the vote on measures have been pointed out". The system of direct legislation is still in its infancy, but the evils from which it is suffering are not inherent, so that with a few safeguards its future success seems assured. 10:

IV

GENERAL STANDARDS OR CANONS OF

CRITICISM

To obtain a workable system of direct legislation much depends upon the provisions of the constitutional amendment and legislative enactments which support it. In many States so-called "jokers" have crept in, and the people's power is said to be hedged about by unjust safeguards and restrictions. Despite the newness of the machinery adopted for direct State-wide legislation, there are a few standards or principles which are now generally recognized and recommended by students and advocates of the initiative and referendum. These fundamentals of criticism may be summarized under nine heads: 102

1. Where the constitutional amendment providing for the initiative and referendum permits the legislature to declare the urgency of an act so as to place it beyond the immediate reach of voters, such declaration should be made by at least a two-thirds majority of each house, and emergency measures should contain a "preamble briefly setting forth the facts constituting the alleged emergen

2. Acts making appropriations for purposes authorized by existing laws and acts for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety should be subject to the referendum petition; but, unlike other acts, not until an adverse vote of the people be rendered should they be suspended. Laws passed by the legislature

should not go into operation for at least ninety days after the adjournment of the session so as to give the voters sufficient opportunity to prepare referendum petitions. Parts, sections, and items of statutes should likewise be open to objection.

3. The right of initiative should apply to both statutes and constitutional amendments without discrimination or limitation of any sort. It should be possible to initiate a measure directly for submission to the voters as well as indirectly, the difference being that the legislature in the latter case has a chance to enact or reject the measure as proposed. Upon rejecting an initiated bill the legislature should be allowed to refer to the voters both the original and a competing measure.104

4. The number of signatures required for initiative petitions should be larger than that required for referendum petitions, the definite number plan being preferable to the percentage plan; but in no case should the number be put so high as to make the system difficult to operate; nor should petitions be required from a certain number of counties or congressional districts in the State.105

5. The State Supreme Court should be required to give its opinion on the constitutionality of bills initiated by the voters.106

6. The State should furnish each voter with a pamphlet containing the titles and texts of measures to be voted on at the pending election. Arguments for and against all measures should be included.

7. The official ballot should not contain the full text of measures submitted but should merely state the purpose of each bill clearly and concisely.

8. Measures should be voted on at regular State