Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Oregon Measure Nos. 105-106, Initiative and Referendum Process Amendment (June 1902)
| Oregon Measure Nos. 105-106 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic Initiative and referendum process |
|
| Status |
|
| Type Legislatively referred constitutional amendment |
Origin |
Oregon Measure Nos. 105-106 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in Oregon on June 2, 1902. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to create a state initiative and referendum process. |
A "no" vote opposed this constitutional amendment to create a state initiative and referendum process. |
Election results
|
Oregon Measure Nos. 105-106 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
62,024 | 91.63% | ||
| No | 5,668 | 8.37% | ||
Aftermath
Kadderly v. City of Portland
Kadderly filed a lawsuit against the City of Portland which wanted to do street construction based on a new city charter. Kadderly claimed that the new initiative and referendum constitutional amendment postponed the effective date of statutes until 90 days after the end of the session, in order to allow time for petition circulation. Portland responded by attacking the new constitutional amendment as a departure from republican governance as defined in the state and federal constitutions.[1]
On July 2, 1902, the State Circuit Court of Multnomah County determined that the initiative and referendum amendment to the constitution was invalid. Their argument was based on the fact that when the initiative and referendum amendment was proposed, there were five other amendments pending. It was “not adopted in accordance with the terms of the constitution regulating amendments to that instrument,” according to the court. They continued, “The wisdom of the methodical deliberative method, provided for disposing of questions so important as amendments to the constitution, is quite manifest.[2] The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Oregon.
In December 1903, the Supreme Court of Oregon offered a mixed ruling. Justice Robert S. Bean said, “A republican form of government is a government administered by representatives chosen or appointed by the people or by their authority.” The initiative and referendum process, however, did not impinge upon republican governance. “The government is still divided into the legislative, executive, and judicial departments, the duties of which are discharged by representatives selected by the people,” he noted. Constituents may now have the ability to legislate and defeat bills, yet “the legislative and executive departments are not destroyed, nor are their powers or authority materially curtailed.” Furthermore, initiated laws may be deemed unconstitutional through judicial review and can be amended and repealed by legislatures. Regarding Portland’s street assessment, the court ruled that such an action wasn’t subject to referral in any even because the action was “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety” of the public.[1]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Measure Nos. 105-106 was as follows:
| “ | CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Initiative and Referendum Amendment | ” |
Support
Supporters
Officials
- US Senator John H Mitchell (R)[3]
- US Senator Joseph Simon (R)
- Governor Theodore Thurston Geer (R)[4]
- State Representative William S. U'Ren (P)
- State Senator Frank Williams (P)[3]
- Judge George H. Williams
- Andrew C. Smith, President of the State Board on Health[4]
Organizations
- Oregon Direct Legislation League
- State Federation of Labor[4]
- Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen
- Federated Trades Council
- Building Trades Council
Arguments
The Direct Legislation League’s President, Judge George H. Williams, and Secretary, William S. U’Ren, issued an appeal to voters to approve Measure 1:[5]
- The initiative and referendum process, they argued, “does not abolish the Legislature, but it does make the whole body of voters a supreme legislative body.”
- The initiative and referendum process has been institutionalized in Switzerland for thirty-five years. There the process has worked without causing any major social conflict or unrest.
Other arguments included:[4]
- Governor Geer (R) stated, “It may not be needed now any more than it was 100 years ago, but there have been times in the past when even “Our Fathers” could have been wisely checked by this most wholesome reservation of the rights of the people.”
- Andrew C. Smith, the President of the State Board on Health, argued, "I consider it the basic principle of the theory of government by the people."
- G.Y. Harry of the State Federation of Labor said, "The adoption of this amendment will give the people power... to enact laws in the interest of the whole people, which the well-organized lobbies of special interests can too often prevent under our present law-making system."
Opposition
Arguments
T.J. Fording wrote a letter to the editor in opposition to Measure 1:[6]
- Fording argued that the initiative and referendum process was a populist ploy created by “a class of agitators” who “are bent on driving capital from the land.”
- An initiative and referendum process would transform the state into “the mecca of socialism.”
- He said, “By the referendum good men may attack bad laws, likewise bad men may attack good laws for the purpose of blackmail.”
- He described the supporters of Measure 1 as “a class of men who devote three-fourths of their working hours to reading and discussing political theories, who think our government very poor and anxiously desire many changes, so many that the electors who have other use for their time cannot possibly analyze pro and con.”
Other arguments included:[7]
- Critics of direct democracy challenged the constitutionality of the process. The Oregon System, they argued, was not “republican.” The ‘will of the people’ could subvert the representative republican institutions that are protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the Oregon Constitution
A simple majority vote is required during one legislative session for the Oregon State Legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. That amounts to a minimum of 31 votes in the Oregon House of Representatives and 16 votes in the Oregon State Senate, assuming no vacancies. Amendments do not require the governor's signature to be referred to the ballot.
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Oregon State Bar, "Oregon State Bar Bulletin," October 2013
- ↑ Morning Oregonian, "It Is Invalid," July 3, 1902
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 East Oregonian, "Frank Williams, of Ashland, Doing Good Work," May 15, 1902
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Morning Oregonian, "Vote for the Amendment: Plea for Initiative and Referendum by League Workers," May 31, 1902
- ↑ Morning Oregonian, "Appeals to Voters," May 20, 1902
- ↑ The Sunday Oregonian, "Against Amendment," May 18, 1902
- ↑ Streb, M.J. (2012). Law and Election Politics. New York, NY: Routledge
 |
State of Oregon Salem (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
