Binding the measures and arguments.

measure to be printed by the state; and he shall forthwith notify the persons offering the same of the amount of money necessary.

The secretary of state shall cause one copy of each of said arguments to be bound in the pamphlet copy of the measures to be submitted as herein provided, and all such measures and arguments to be submitted at one election shall be bound together in a single pamphlet. All the printing shall be done by the state. ... The title page of every measure bound in said pamphlet shall show its ballot title and ballot numbers. The title page of each argument shall show the measure or measures it favors or opposes and by what persons or organization it is issued. When such arguments are printed, he shall pay the state printer therefor from the money deposited with him and refund the surplus, if any, to the parties who paid him. The cost of printing, binding, and distributing the measures proposed, and of binding and distributing the arguments, shall be paid by the state as a part of the state printing, it being intended that only the cost of paper and printing the arguments shall be paid by the parties presenting the same, and they shall not be charged any higher rate for such work than is paid by the state for similar work and paper.

Not later than the fifty-fifth day before the regular election at which such measures are to be voted upon, the secretary of state shall transmit by mail, with postage fully prepaid, to every voter in the state whose address he may have, one copy of such pamphlet. . . . In the case of a special election he shall mail said pamphlet to every voter not less than twenty days before said election.

The cost.

Distribution of the pamphlets.

Growth of the Recall

after 1903

222. Constitutional provision for the Recall 1 The Initiative and the Referendum are the two most iwidespread forms of direct popular control; the third and less well-known form is the Recall. The Recall is a device whereby certain elective officials

a who, it is claimed, have not given satisfaction in office, may be required to stand for reëlection before the end of their term. In its modern form the Recall was first used in 1903 in Los Angeles. The device has since been adopted in a number of states, chiefly in the West. The following extract from the constitution of Arizona illustrates the way in which a state may provide a constitutional basis for this form of popular control:

ARTICLE VIII, Section 1. Every public officer in the state of Every elecArizona, holding an elective office, either by election or appoint- in Arizona ment, is subject to recall from such office by the qualified electors subject to of the electoral district from which candidates are elected to such

the Recall. office. Such electoral district may include the whole state. Such number of said electors as shall equal twenty-five per centum of the number of votes cast at the last preceding general election for all of the candidates for the office held by such officer, may by petition, which shall be known as a Recall Petition, demand his recall.

Section 2. Every Recall Petition must contain a general state- Nature of ment, in not more than two hundred words, of the grounds of such the Recall

Petition. demand, and must be filed in the office in which petitions for nominations to the office held by the incumbent are required to be filed. The signatures to such Recall Petition need not all be on one sheet of paper, but each signer must add to his signature the date of his signing said petition, and his place of residence, giving his street and number, if any, should he reside in a town or city. One of the signers of each sheet of such petition, or the person circulating such sheet, must make and subscribe an oath on said sheet, that the signatures thereon are genuine. Section 3. If said officer shall offer his resignation it shall be ac- The Recall

Election. cepted, and the vacancy shall be filled as may be provided by law. If he shall not resign within five days after a Recall Petition is filed, a special election shall be ordered to be held, not less than twenty, nor more than thirty days after such order, to determine whether such officer shall be recalled. On the ballots at said election shall be print-,' the reasons as set forth in the petition for demanding his recall, and, in not more than two hundred words, the officer's justification of his course in office. He shall continue to perform the duties of his office until the result of said election shall have been officially declared.

Section 4. Unless he otherwise request, in writing, his name shall The result be placed as a candidate on the official ballot without nomination. of the

election. Other candidates for the office may be nominated to be voted for

cessor.

upon the

at said election. The candidate who shall receive the highest number of votes, shall be declared elected for the remainder of the term. Unless the incumbent receive the highest number of votes, he shall be deemed to be removed from office, upon qualification of his suc

In the event that his successor shall not qualify within five days after the result of said election shall have been declared,

the said office shall be vacant, and may be filled as provided by law. Limitations Section 5. No Recall Petition shall be circulated against any

officer until he shall have held his office for a period of six months, power to recall. except that it may be filed against a member of the Legislature at any

time after five days from the beginning of the first session after his election. After one Recall Petition and election, no further Recall Petition shall be filed against the same officer during the term for which he was elected, unless petitioners signing such petition shall first pay into the public treasury which has paid such election expenses,

all expenses of the preceding election. Application Section 6. The general election laws shall apply to recall elecof the general tions in so far as applicable. Laws necessary to facilitate the operaelection laws.

tion of the provisions of this article shall be enacted.

1

The Recall in practice.

223. An example of how the Recall is used A satisfactory decision upon the merits of the Recall is difficult because it is so recent a development, and still so little used, that few data are available. The state-wide Recall has been in existence for more than a decade, yet few state officials have been removed by it. There are more cases in which the Recall has been used against municipal officials, though not always wisely and not always with success. In the following selection, Mr. F. M. Shannonhouse describes the use of the Recall in Charlotte, North Carolina, in

1919: [In the summer of 1919 a street car strike developed in Charlotte. On one occasion]mobs all over the city, composed of delegations from the various cotton mills, stoned the cars and engaged in other lawlessness. The police force remained practically inactive. The day the cars stopped, and the disorders above mentioned occurred, Mon

day, August 25, numbers of reputable citizens signed the petition for a Recall [against the mayor] and others threatened to sign unless order was maintained. [That night a mob gathered in front of the car barns, held a conference], and voted to enter the car barn and "get" the strike breakers. Upon approaching the barn a shot was fired — the mob claims by chief of police, the policemen claim by a member of the mob - immediately followed by promiscuous shooting, resulting in five of the mob being killed and twenty or thirty others being wounded.

Peace, long delayed, reigned. Immediately the demand for the Recall was taken by the mob, and a large portion of union labor. A committee nominated officers to run on the Recall Petition. ..

The recall candidate for mayor made the issue the unlawful shoot- The result. ing at the car barn. The attitude of a large number who had originally signed the recall petition suddenly reversed. Our newspapers and citizens, neutral so far as unionism was concerned, accepted the issue, waged a fight and defeated the Recall Petition by a vote of 3,300 to 1,900, the biggest election ever held in the city.

It was not a question of candidates. It was simply a question of Significance enforcement of the law for the present and the future. The city commissioners, unionists and all others have learned where this community stands on that issue. While the Recall is condemned by a great many, it is the opinion of the Recall

Election. of many familiar with the apathy and indifference on the part of a majority of the citizens that the Recall Election led to a campaign of education and action absolutely necessary and essential to head off a rapidly growing spirit of bolshevism, class autocracy and political chaos such as would have led to results unknown.

The Recall rendered an invaluable service under our most trying conditions, and amply justified its inclusion in our charter. Present and new conditions make necessary some proper agency for the majority to ascertain immediately where they stand, and whether or not the majority shall rule, and particularly so when the city government is committed to the hands of three or a few men with full legislative and executive authority.

The Recall Election brought out one thousand to fifteen hun- Conclusion. dred more voters than ever voted before a city election, because

it was not "politics.” It was law, order, security, life for all — the union man and the non-union man. The fire was quenched instead of being allowed to smoulder for months awaiting a regular election, while the peripatetic agitator and selfish and unscrupulous office seeker would have fanned the flame of hatred and discontent the community by his misrepresentations.

The Initiative, the Referendum, and the Recall are relatively little used.

Popular control in Alabama,

224. Popular control chiefly a threat 1 The Initiative, the Referendum, and the Recall are seldom used in most of the cities and states which have provided for these forms of direct popular control. In an investigation conducted by him a few years ago, Dr. Charles F. Taylor found that of 197 municipalities which had provided for the Initiative, the Referendum and the Recall, 137 had not used any of these devices. It is true, of course, that these measures may be more valuable in their existence than in their use, that is to say, they may be of service by inducing a keen sense of duty and responsibility in the minds of officials, without, however, requiring actual use. The following summaries by Dr. Taylor illustrate something of the degree to which these three measures of popular control have been used:

Birmingham, Ala. (April, 1911.) Has used the referendum twice: January, 1912, electric light contract; September, 1912, water contract. In both instances contracts were annulled.

Santa Cruz, Cal. (February, 1911.) Initiative: May 6, 1913. Liquor license ordinance; rejected.

Moline, III. (April, 1911.) Initiative: July 23, 1912. Telephone franchise; "carried by large majority.”

Marshalltown, Iowa. One attempt has been made to recall the mayor: failed.

Pratt, Kan. Referendum: July, 1913, fixing electric light rates. “Ordinance “knocked out.'” Recall: September, 1913, unsuccessful attempt to recall the mayor.

Missoula, Mont. (July, 1911.) Initiative: General election, 1912, on question of closing saloon on Sundays; carried.

California,

Illinois,

Iowa,

Kansas,