Jasper County Democrat, Volume 17, Number 58, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 28 October 1914 — OUR UNAMENDABLE STATE CONSTITUTION [ARTICLE]

OUR UNAMENDABLE STATE CONSTITUTION

The Situation In Indiana As Shown By the Experience of Sixty-three Long Years. It is now almost universally agreed that we need either a wholly new constitution or a substantial revision of our ipresent constitution. It is also agreed among those who have investigated the workings of our mode of amending the present constitution, that it is practtctlly unamendable. During the past sixty-three years 322 amendments have been formally proposed, and our constitution has been but twice amended—once by single section in 1873, and once by seven sections in 1881. And these amendments were of but minor importance. A more obstructive system of constitutional amendment than ours could hardly be devised. It would almost , seem as though the present constitution had been purposely designd to perpetuate Itself for all time and without change. Here is the amendment process: A proposed amendment must originate in the legislature and be passed by a majority of the votes of the total members of both houses. It must then "lie over” awaiting the action of the succeeding general assembly. If this next legislature passes it in the same form, and again by a majottty vote of both houses, it can then be submitted to the, people, but it must be adopted by a majority vote of all voters at the election. This means a majority of the votes cast for the highest candidate. And while any amendment is awaiting the “action of a suceeding general assembly or of the people" no other amendment can be proposed. This takes all direct initiative away from the people and makes endless obstruction almost certain. The requirement of a "total majority vote" has proven unreasonably obstructive wherever tried. The Janu-

ary. TST3, isßue 61 ■’Equity” contain! this authoritative statement: "Twelve states have for years had this requirement for the adoption of constitutional amendments, and in these states it has been found practically impossible to change the constitution, no matter how necessary.” For example, in Minnesota, in 1910 and 1912, amendments were voted upon, receiving majorities “thereon* ranging from 61 per cent, to 77 per cent., but all of them failed because they did not receive a majority of all votes at the election.

We have had a similar experience with the proposed amendment to require qualifications for lawyers. This amendment was first proposed in 1897, and was •pending" until a final decision of the supreme oourt In 1918 declared It rejected. It was voted upon three times by the people, each time receiving a large majority of those voting on the question, but not a majority of all electors voting at the election. In the election of 1910 it received 76% per cent, of the vote of those voting upon It, and yet it failed. Such is the tyranny of the minority Under onr present amendment system. Our lsst 'legislature, proposed 22 amendments. They have been denominated by the newspapers &b “The Lost Amendments,” for the reason thst they did not appear In the published Acts of legislature. However, since they are in the Journal, it is to be presumed that they are awaiting the "action of the next legislature.” These amendments did not come from the people, and they do not represent the substantial demands of the people. If they could be adopted they might be the means of bringing some relief through legislative action. But what reason is there for believing they will meet with any other fate than that which has attended former proposed amendments? The only reasonable hope of their adoption would be by special election. But who would sanction the expense of a special election for theee proposed amendments when they do not even touch the many important constitutional questions which

demand a derision today? Let it , rwaemburefl. also, that ao other ; amendments cgn be proposed whilei any of those are pending. Their eCect| inevitably must be to delay the day j of mere important constitutional change*! The needs of constitutional revlslom in ifidtaßa are great enough so domend general revision. Thij only bOM tbfoogh * constifutton2 can-i! Ahn m (ho end tt would boi and fay mare satinyittn any further experiment thtfqp jrph amendments.