Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

LOCAL TAXATION EXEMPTION.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 7 adding section 8/2 to article XIII of constitution. Authorizes any county or municipality to exempt from taxation for local purposes in whole or in part, any one or more of following classes of property improvements in, on, or over land; shipping; household furniture; live stock; merchandise; machinery; tools; farming implements; vehicles; other personal property except franchises; provides that ordinance or resolution making such exemptions shall be subject to referendum; and requires that taxes upon property not exempt from taxation shall be uniform.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 7, a resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State of California by adding a new section to article XIII, relating to revenue and taxation.

The legislature of the State of California at its fortieth regular session commencing on the sixth day of January, nineteen hundred and thirteen, two thirds of all members of each house of said legislature voting in favor thereof, hereby propose an amendment to the Constitution of the State of California, by adding to article XIII a new section.

Section 1. Article XIII, of the Constitution of the State of California, is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section to be numbered eight and one half, to read as follows:

Section 8. Any county, city and county, city or town, may exempt from taxation for local purposes in whole or in part, any one or more of the following classes of property: improvements in, on, or over land; shipping; household furniture; live stock; merchandise; machinery; tools; farming implements; vehicles; other personal property except franchises. Any ordinance or resolution of any county, city and county, city or town, exempting property from taxation, as in this section provided, shall be subject to a referendum vote as by law provided for ordinances or resolutions. Taxes levied upon property not exempt from taxation shall be uniform.

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO 7.

Any one who opposes this amendment immediately places the people of the State of California in the position of being unable to govern themselves. In other words, the opponents are opposed to self-government.

The amendment is merely an enabling act, and does not, of itself, adopt any system of taxation, nor does it make any change in the present systems now in use. It merely gives to the people. of the various political subdivisions, set forth therein, the right to change their present system of taxation to best suit the welfare and advancement of their home city or town. For example, if a city wants to encourage manufacturing, that city could exempt manufacturing establishments from taxation. If a city would have more homes built within its borders, houses could be exempted. And so certain property might be exempt as the nature of each case required. This is what is called Home Rule in Taxation or self-government.

Cities now having the right to say how their money shall be spent should, by the same reasoning be entitled to adopt a svstem whereby that The constitution has remoney is to be raised. cently given to cities home rule by virtue of the initiative, referendum and recall, and it is only logical that cities should have home rule in matters pertaining to their tax system.

The present system of taxation is unjust, burdensome, complicated and costly. The taxpayer is compelled to pay a great number of deputies each year to assess all forms of property, including household furniture, gifts and other per

sonal property. Thus are cities confronted with a complicated system. If, for example, in a given city the tax should be raised on the land alone, thus exempting other forms of property, it would immediately lessen the cost of assessment and would encourage building, thrift and enterprise. For, it being no longer necessary to be punished for being thrifty, people would naturally brings into use land now held out of use. Where land is held out of use, for speculative purposes, by the land barons of the state, society suffers. If men realize, by virtue of a perfect system of taxation, that it will not pay them to keep land out of use, they will immediately begin to improve the land with the result that more buildings will be erected, more mechanics, artisans and laborers will be employed, a greater demand for labor will ensue and an increase in wages will result. Consequently, the whole of society will be benefited, and a better, grander and more moral order of things will result.

Colorado has adopted a similar amendment, and the city of Pueblo in that state is working under it to its fullest extent. Vancouver and other provinces of Western Canada have adopted it, and there is no noticeable desire to return to the old system of taxation. The Minnesota Tax Commission has recently recommended it, as well as the Commission on New Sources of City Revenue, city of New York.

GEORGE GELDER,

Assemblyman Fortieth District.

The general property tax for state purposes was so unsatisfactory that California abandoned it four years ago by separating state and local taxation. The general property tax for local purposes is unsatisfactory in California, as well as in other states that have separated state and local taxation.

The personal property tax is unsatisfactory wherever it is in force. It has been abandoned in Pennsylvania, and outside of the United States by every progressive nation. It is condemned by every thoughtful student of taxation as the easiest tax to evade, as incapable of equitable enforcement, and as unjust. The only way to get rid of it in California is by amending the constitution.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 7, known as the Home Rule Tax Amendment, gives California counties, cities and towns the opportunity to abandon the personal property tax wholly or in part, at once or gradually, if they wish to do so, but does not compel its abolition if a county, city or town wishes to retain it.

There is a widespread and growing belief that taxes on improvements work injustice to the improver, operating to discourage improvements, although improvements benefit a community.

Some counties, cities and towns may prefer to abolish taxes on improvements; others may prefer to retain taxes. the improvement One county, city or town has no interest in the method by which another raises its local revenue, therefore, uniformity is not desirable, but merely interferes with progress. But a constitutional amendment is necessary to permit counties, cities and towns to tax or exempt improvements, as

they may prefer, and the Home Rule Tax Amendment gives that permission, without compelling them either to exempt or to tax improvements.

Home rule in taxation is merely an extension of the other home rule rights given by the California constitution to counties, cities and towns. Home rule in taxation is not an "untried experiment." It has been in force in the western provinces of Canada for more than thirty years, in New Zealand for twenty years, in the Australian states for fifteen years, and in the irrigation districts of California since 1909. The Minnesota Tax Commission praises its operation in western Canada.

The Home Rule Tax Amendment will enable each county, city and town to adopt a system of taxation that suits the people of the community, without regard to what is done by the people of other communities. Riverside county has no interest in local taxation in Shasta or any other county. Los Angeles has no interest in the local taxation of Stockton.

The Home Rule Tax Amendment will permit any county, city or town to exempt in whole or in part certain classes of property. Should all of these classes of property be exempted by any county, city or town, it would then have the system of taxation that has been so successful in hundreds of cities, towns and rural communities in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as well as in the Modesto, Oakdale and other irrigation districts of California.

For these reasons the Home Rule Tax Amendment should be approved.

GEO. B. FINNEGAN, Assemblyman Ninth District.

ARGUMENT AGAINST ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 7.

If the proposed amendment to article XIII of the constitution is adopted, it will create a new revenue system, and will make possible a more unequal system of taxation than now prevails.

The theory of taxation is that it should be equal, and all classes of property should be subject to just and equal taxation, and every tax system should be statewide.

This amendment will authorize local governing bodies to alter any tax system now or hereafter existing.

It gives them the right to exempt certain classes of property from taxation either in whole or in part, thus creating an unsettled value for such property.

One set of officers could exempt from taxation property that their successors in office would include for such taxable purposes, thereby creating endless confusion.

Classes of property included in this amendment would be of different value in adjoining territories.

Under this provision the city of Oakland could exempt merchandise from certain taxes, which would compel the cities of San Francisco and Berkeley to exempt the same classes of property from such taxes, or the merchants of the latter two named cities, other things being equal, could not compete with the merchants of the former on an equal basis.

Under this provision, improvements of all kinds can be exempted from taxation in the county of San Francisco, which would compel adjoining counties to do likewise, or investors would be induced to improve only in counties, that exempt improvements from taxation. Individuals or corporations locating factory or mercantile sites would locate in the counties where taxes were the lightest, thus inducing local officials to exempt such property from taxation in order to secure such sites, to the detriment and expense of other classes of property.

This amendment would make it possible for all cash in banks or bills receivable to be exempted from taxation.

It provides that a person could own vast numbers of live stock, as some of our citizens do, and not pay a cent of certain local taxes on that kind of property.

If this amendment is adopted it will tend to create dissension on the question of taxation. It will create strife between owners of different classes of property, and will not only make vicious local legislation possible, but will induce such legislation. It will assist the professional tax dodger.

A similar amendment to this one was submitted to the voters of the state two years ago and was overwhelmingly defeated. W. F. CHANDLER, Assemblyman Fiftieth District.

ELECTIONS BY PLURALITY, PREFERENTIAL VOTE AND

PRIMARY.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 19 amending section 13 of article XX of constitution. Declares plurality of votes at any primary or election constitutes choice unless constitution otherwise provides; permits charters framed under constitution for counties or municipalities and general laws for other counties and municipalities to provide otherwise, or for nomination or election, or both, of all or any portion of candidates at a primary, or for preferential system of voting at any county or municipal primary or other election; authorizes general laws providing preferential system of voting at any other primary.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 19, a resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State of California by amending section 13 of article XX, relating to elections.

The legislature of the State of California, at its fortieth regular session, commencing the sixth day of January, nineteen hundred and thirteen, two thirds of all the members elected to each of the two houses of said legislature voting in favor thereof, hereby proposes that section thirteen of article twenty of the Constitution of the State of California be amended to read as follows:

PROPOSED LAW.

Section 13. Where not otherwise directed in this constitution, a plurality of the votes given

at any primary or other election shall constitute a choice, including nomination for and election to office; provided, that it may also be otherwise directed in charters framed under the authority of this constitution for cities, counties or cities, and counties and by general laws for other counties and municipalities. Provision may be made in such charters, and by general laws in the case of other counties and municipalities, for either or both nomination for and election to office at a primary election of all or any portion of the candidates voted for at such primary elec tion and for a preferential system of voting at any county, city and county, or municipal primary or other election. Provision for a preferential system of voting at any other primary election may also be made by general laws.

[ocr errors]

Section 13, article XX, proposed to be amended, now reads as follows:

EXISTING LAW.

Section 13. A plurality of the votes given at any election shall constitute a choice where not otherwise directed in this constitution; provided, that it shall be competent in all charters of cities, counties or cities and counties framed under the authority of this constitution to provide the manner in which their respective elective officers may be elected and to prescribe a higher proportion of the vote therefor; and provided, also, that it shall be competent for the legislature by general law to provide the manner in which officers of municipalities organized or incorporated under general laws may be elected and to prescribe a higher proportion of the vote therefor.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 19.

The object of the amendment is to make possible the adoption, when desired, of a preferential system of electing officers where such are chosen - as non-partisans, and of nominating party candidates where officers are chosen as partisans. First-Applied to non-partisan elections. Municipalities and counties having charters may provide in such charters for a preferential system of electing their respective officers. The legislature may make similar provision for cities and counties not having charters.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

The "preferential" system is in effect the socalled "Berkeley" plan of majority choice, with but one election instead of two, thus saving the cost, time and energy of a second election.

It is already in successful operation in Grand Junction, Colorado Springs, Denver, Duluth, Minn., Spokane, Portland, Ore., and Clevelandcities ranging from eight thousand to over half a million population.

While the details of various preferential plans differ, the underlying principle is the same. Nomination, as under the "Berkeley" plan, is by a small petition. The ballots are printed that the voter may designate a second (and under some systems a third) as well as a first choice. If any candidate receives a majority of all the first choices he is thereby elected. If no one re

ceives such a majority, the candidate with the lowest number of first choices is dropped, and the second choices of those who voted for him as first choice are added to the first choice votes of the candidates remaining. This process is repeated till one has secured a majority of all votes cast and so elected.

Evidently much of the personal bitterness of present campaigns will be prevented, for no candidate, knowing that his election may require the second choice votes of the supporters of other candidates, is going to deliberately estrange such voters by uncalled-for attacks on such candidates. In operation the preferential system has proved simple for the voter and satisfactory to the community, and also a great money saver.

Second-Applied to partisan primaries.

The legislature may, by general law, provide for the use of such system for selection of party candidates at partisan primaries, as is done in a number of states. It insures the selection of party candidates, supported by a majority of all electors of each party participating in the primary. Without such plan, the candidate may be nominated by a small minority. Such possibility is now used by leaders and bosses to dissuade more than one of their faction from seeking nomination for fear that another group, though smaller, may, by concentrating on one candidate, win the nomination. Under preferential voting there is no danger of minority nomination, hence no such reason for preventing candidacies.

The "Berkeley" plan is still authorized under the changed provision; and any question of the legality of electing all or any portion of the candidates at the first or primary election is set at rest by specific sanction.

The amendment does not require the adoption of any system, but does enable the legislature on the one hand, and chartered cities and counties on the other, to adopt, if desired, such preferential system as may best suit the several needs. WM. C. CLARK,

Assemblyman Thirty-seventh District.
L. D. BOHNETT,
Assemblyman Forty-fourth District.

ASSEMBLY PAYROLL EXPENSES.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 23 amending section 23a of article IV of constitution. Increases the amount allowed for the total expense for officers, employees and attachés of assembly at any regular or biennial session of legislature from present amount of five hundred dollars per day to six hundred dollars per day; makes no other change in operation of present section.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 23, a

resolution to propose to the people of the State of California, an amendment to section 23a of article 4, of the Constitution of the State of California relative to the limitation of expense for officers and employees of the legislature.

The legislature of the State of California, at its regular session, commencing the sixth day of January, 1913, two thirds of the members elected to each of the two houses of said legislature, voting in favor thereof, hereby proposes to the qualified electors of the State of California, the following amendment to the Constitution of the State of California:

PROPOSED LAW.

Section 23a. The legislature may also provide for the employment of help; but in no case shall the total expense for officers, employees and attachés of the senate exceed the sum of five hundred dollars per day, and in no case shall the total expense for officers, employees and attachés of the assembly exceed the sum of six hundred dollars per day, at any regular or biennial session, nor the sum of two hundred dollars per day in either house at any special or extraordinary session, nor shall the pay of any officer, em

ployee or attaché be increased after he is elected or appointed.

Section 23a, article IV, proposed to be amended, now reads as follows:

EXISTING LAW.

Section 23a. The legislature may also provide for the employment of help; but in no case shall the total expense for officers, employees and attachés exceed the sum of five hundred dollars per day for either house, at any regular or biennial session, nor the sum of two hundred dollars per day for either house at any special or extraordinary session, nor shall the pay of any officer, employee or attaché be increased after he is elected or appointed.

ARGUMENT AGAINST ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 23. The constitution now provides a limitation of expense of $1,000.00 per day for officers and employees of the legislature while in session, equally divided between the senate and assembly. As there are eighty members of the assembly and only forty in the senate, I introduced an amendment allowing $600.00 per day for the assembly

and $400.00 per day for the senate, leaving the total $1,000.00 per day, as at present. The senate amended by making it $600.00 per day for the assembly, or $100.00 per day more than at present, and $500.00 (or as at present) for the senate, making a total of $1,100.00 per day.

A new law, which I introduced, is now in effect which combines the "file rooms" of each house, making a saving of about $50.00 per day for help.

Several bills were introduced providing for a "Member's Clerk" for each member; as these bills failed to become laws and as the file rooms will now be combined, I see no reason for the adoption of Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 23 and therefore recommend that it be defeated. FRANK M. SMITH, Assemblyman Thirty-sixth District.

ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF MUNICIPAL CHARTERS. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 25 amending section 8 of article XI of constitution. Authorizes cities of more than thirty-five hundred population to adopt charters; prescribes method therefor, and time for preparation thereof by freeholders; requires but one publication thereof, copies furnished upon application; provides for approval by legislature, method and time for amendment, and that of several conflicting concurrent amendments one receiving highest vote shall prevail; authorizes charter to confer on municipality all powers over municipal affairs, to establish boroughs and confer thereon general and special municipal powers.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 25, a resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to section eight of article eleven of the Constitution of the State of California relating to municipal corporations.

The legislature of the State of California, at its regular session commencing on the sixth day of January, 1913, two thirds of the members elected to each of the two houses of said legislature voting in favor thereof, hereby proposes that section 8 of article XI of the Constitution of the State of California be amended to read as follows:

PROPOSED LAW.

Section 8. Any city or city and county containing a population of more than three thousand five hundred inhabitants, as ascertained by the last preceding census taken under the authority of the congress of the United States or of the legislature of California, may from a charter for its own government, consistent with and subject to this constitution; and any city, or city and county having adopted a charter may adopt a new one. Any such charter shall be framed by a board of fifteen freeholders chosen by the electors of such city at any general or special election; but no person shall be eligible as a candidate for such board unless he shall have been, for the five years next preceding, an elector of said city. An election for choosing freeholders may be called by a twothirds vote of the legislative body of such city, and, on presentation of a petition signed by not less than fifteen per cent of the registered electors of such city, the legislative body shall call such election at any time not less than thirty nor more than sixty days from date of the filing of the petition. Any such petition shall be verified by the authority having charge of the registration records of such city or city and county and the expenses of such verification shall be provided by the legislative body thereof. Candidates for the office of freeholders shall be nominated either in such manner as may be provided for the nomination of officers of the municipal government or by petition, substantially in the same manner as may be provided by general laws for the nomination by petition of electors of candidates for public offices to be voted for at general elections. The board of freeholders shall, within one hundred and twenty days after the result of the election is declared, prepare and propose a charter for the government of such city; but the said period of one hundred and twenty days may with the consent of the legislative body of such city be extended by such board not exceeding a total of sixty days. The charter so prepared shall be signed by a majority of the board of freeholders and filed, in the office

of the clerk of the legislative body of said city. The legislative body of said city shall within fifteen days after such filing cause such charter to be published once in the official paper of said city; (or in case there be no such paper, in a paper of general circulation); and shall cause copies of such charter to be printed in convenient pamphlet form, and shall, until the date fixed for the election upon such charter, advertise in one or more papers of general circulation published in said city a notice that such copies may be had upon application therefor. Such charter shall be submitted to the electors of such city at a date to be fixed by the board of freeholders, before such filing and designated on such charter, either at a special election held not less than sixty days from the completion of the publication of such charter as above provided, or at the general election next following the expiration of said sixty days. If a majority of the qualified voters voting thereon at such general or special election shall vote in favor of such proposed charter, it shall be deemed to be ratified, and shall be submitted to the legislature, if then in session, or at the next regular or special session of the legislature. The legislature shall by concurrent resolution approve or reject such charter as a whole, without power of alteration or amendment; and if approved by a majority of the members elected to each house it shall become the organic law of such city or city and county, and supersede any existing charter and all laws inconsistent therewith. One copy of the charter so ratified and approved shall be filed with the secretary of state, one with the recorder of the county in which such city is located, and one in the archives of the city; and thereafter the courts shall take judicial notice of the provisions of such charter. The charter of any city or city and county may be amended by proposals therefor submitted by the legislative body of the city on its own motion or on petition signed by fifteen per cent of the registered electors, or both. Such proposals shall be submitted to the electors only during the six months next preceding a regular session of the legislature or there. after and before the final adjournment of that session and at either a special election called for that purpose or at any general or special election. Petitions for the submission of any amendment shall be filed with the legislative body of the city or city and county not less than sixty days prior to the general election next preceding a regular session of the legislature. The signa tures on such petitions shall be verified by the authority having charge of the registration records of such city or city and county, and the expenses of such verification shall be provided by the legislative body thereof. If such petitions have a sufficient number of signatures the legislative body of the city or city and county shall so submit the amendment or amendments so

proposed to the electors. Amendments proposed by the legislative body and amendments proposed by petition of the electors may be submitted at the same election. The amendments so submitted shall be advertised in the same manner as herein provided for the advertisement of a

proposed charter, and the election thereon held at a date to be fixed by the legislative body of such city, not less than forty and not more than sixty days after the completion of the advertising in the official paper. If a majority of the qualified voters voting on any such amendment vote in favor thereof it shall be deemed ratified, and shall be submitted to the legislature at the regular session next following such election; and approved or rejected without power of alteration in the same manner as herein provided for the approval or rejection of a charter. In submitting any such charter or amendment separate propositions, whether alternative or conflicting, or one included within the other, may be submitted at the same time to be voted on by the electors separately, and, as between those so related, if more than one receive a majority of the votes, the proposition receiving the larger number of votes shall control as to all matters in conflict. It shall be competent in any charter framed under the authority of this section to provide that the municipality governed thereunder may make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to the restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters and in respect to other matters they shall be subject to general laws.

It shall be competent in any charter to provide for the I division of the city or city and county governed I thereby into boroughs or districts, and to provide that each such borough or district may exercise such general or special municipal powers, and to be administered in such manner, as may be provided for each such borough or district in the charter of the city or city and county.

The percentages of the registered electors = herein required for the election of freeholders or the submission of amendments to charters shall e be calculated upon the total vote cast in the city or city and county at the last preceding general state election; and the qualified electors shall be those whose names appear upon the registration The elecrecords of the same or preceding year. - tion laws of such city or city and county shall, so far as applicable govern all elections held under the authority of this section.

Section 8, article XI, proposed to be amended, = now reads as follows:

EXISTING LAW.

Section 8. Any city containing a population of more than three thousand five hundred inhabitants as ascertained and established by the last = preceding census, taken under the direction of the congress of the United States, or by a census of said city, taken, subsequent to the aforesaid cen- sus, under the direction of the legislative body thereof, under laws authorizing the taking of the census of cities, may frame a charter for its own government, consistent with, and subject to, the constitution (or, having framed such a charter, may frame a new one), by causing a board of fifteen freeholders, who shall have been, for at least five years, qualified electors thereof, to be elected by the qualified electors of said city, at a Said board general or special municipal election.

of freeholders may be so elected in pursuance of = an ordinance adopted by a vote of two thirds of all the members of the council, or other legislative body, of such city, declaring that the public interest requires the election of such board for the purpose of preparing and proposing a charter for said city, or in pursuance of a petition of qualified electors of said city, as hereinafter provided. Such petition, signed by fifteen per centum of the qualified electors of said city computed upon the total number of votes cast therein for all candidates for governor at the last preceding general election at which a governor was elected, praying for the election of a board of fifteen freeholders to prepare and provose a charter for said city, may be filed in the office of the city clerk thereof. It shall be the duty of said city clerk, within twenty days after the filing of said petition, to examine the same and to ascertain

from the record of the registration of electors of the county, showing the registration of electors of said city, whether the petition is signed by the requisite number of qualified electors of such city. If required by said clerk, the council, or other legislative body, of said city shall authorize him to employ persons specially to assist him in the work of examining such petition, and shall provide for their compensation. Upon the completion of such examination, said clerk shall forthwith attach to said petition his certificate, properly dated, showing the result thereof, and if, by said certificate, it shall appear that said petition is signed by the requisite number of qualified electors, said clerk shall present the said petition to said council, or other legislative body, at its next regular meeting after the date of such certificate. Upon the adoption of such ordinance, or the presentation of such petition, said council, or other legislative body, shall order the holding of a special election for the purpose of electing such board of freeholders, which said special election shall be held not less than twenty days, nor more than sixty days after the adoption of the ordinance aforesaid, or the presentation of said petition to said council, or other legislative body; provided, that if a general municipal election shall occur in said city not less than twenty days, nor more than sixty days, after the adoption of the ordinance aforesaid, or the presentation of said petition to said council, or other legislative body, said board of freeholders may be elected at such general municipal election. Candidates for election as members of said board of freeholders shall be nominated by petition, substantially in the same manner as may be provided by general laws for the nomination by petition of electors of candidates for public offices to be voted for at general elections.

It shall be the duty of said board of freeholders, within one hundred and twenty davs after the result of such election shall have been declared by said council, or other legislative body, to prepare and propose a charter for said city, which shall be signed in duplicate by the members of said board of freeholders, or a majority of them, and be filed, one copy in the office of the city clerk of said city, and the other in the office of the county recorder of the county in which said city is situated. Said council, or other legislative body, shall, thereupon, cause said proposed charter to be published for at least ten times, in a daily newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in said city; provided, that in any city where no such daily newspaper is printed, published and circulated, such proposed charter shall be published, for at least three times. in at least one weekly newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circulated in said city, and, in any event. the first publication of such proposed charter shall be made within fifteen days after the filing of a copy thereof, as aforesaid, in the office of the city clerk. Such proposed charter shall be submitted by said council, or other legislative body, to the qualified electors of said city at a special election held not less than twenty days, nor more than forty days, after the completion of such publication: provided. that if a general municipal election shall occur in said city not less than twenty days. nor more than forty days, after the completion of such publication. then such proposed charter may be so submitted at such general election. If a majority of such qualified electors voting thereon at such general or special election shall vote in favor of such proposed charter, it shall be deemed to be ratified, and shall be submitted to the legislature, if it be in regular session, otherwise at its next regular session, or it may be submitted to the legislature in extraordinary session, for its approval or rejection as a whole. without power of alteration or amendment. Such approval may be made by concurrent resolution, and if approved by a majority vote of the members elected to each house, such charter shall become the charter of such city, or, if such city be consolidated with a county, then of such city and county, and shall become the organic law thereof, and supersede

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »