Imágenes de páginas

for direct legislation to justify considering it as a separate classification, especially in view of current public interest in specifically educational issues. Apparently not all of the California citizenry was satisfied with provisions for the initiative as an improvement in California politics. An attack on the initiative as a political device was not long in coming. In 1920 an attempt was made to limit its use, but this effort failed (298-421).' However, in the following election efforts to weaken the initiative were renewed in a new proposed amendment. This amendment was crushed by more than 100 thousand votes. Interest in changing the initiative through the initiative process died at this point until 1950 when a provision to bar names in initiative measures was passed (1,985–910).

[blocks in formation]

One important area of politics to come up for consideration by initiative or referendum was the matter of elections. In 1915 a referendum proposal for non-partisan nomination of state officers was crushed (112-156). On the same ballot an effort to remove party symbols suffered a similar fate (106-151). The following year a proposal for an open primary system edged near to success but was nonetheless defeated by a safe margin (319– 349).

[blocks in formation]

'All votes indicated in parentheses are in thousands of votes. The yes vote is always listed first. The data covering elections from 1912 to 1949 was drawn from Crouch, Initiative and Referendum, pp. 42–49. For materials after 1949 the sources consulted were State of California, Statement of Vote, General Election, November 7, 1950,compiled by Frank M. Jordan, Secretary of State, pp. 26-31; ibid., November 6, 1956, pp. 22–29; ibid., November 4, 1958, pp. 26-34; Handbook California Legislature 1953 Regular Session, pp. 423-424; ibid., 1955, pp. 444–445.

• An initiative measure.

A referendum measure.

Perhaps of greater importance to the future of California elections were the crucial reapportionment elections of 1926. Two offerings were made on the same ballot. One proposed reapportionment by population. It went down to defeat (319-492). The federal plan for reapportionment was accepted in its stead (437-363). Two years later the federal reapportionment plan was approved for a second time, this time with a margin of more than 100 thousand votes (692–570). The only other important adjustment in the political machinery of California by direct legislation was a 1930 initiative statute to adopt a permanent registration system. It was overwhelmingly approved (609-447).

[blocks in formation]

In California the field of labor legislation has been a favorite political battlefield. Labor and management have both had their victories. A 1938 proposal to regulate picketing and boycotting was badly beaten in its first appearance (1,067-1,476). However, when the issue appeared again in 1942 as a prohibition on picketing and secondary boycotting, the wartime measure carried (1,124-909). Labor's effort to obtain a declaration for a fair employment policy in 1946 was crushed by a better than two to one margin (675-1,682). On the other hand, in 1958 a management-sponsored right to work law which would have eliminated the union shop suffered a similar fate (2,079-3,070).

[blocks in formation]

In the California social order the human activity which called forth more direct legislation through the initiative and referendum than any other was the matter of consuming alcoholic beverages. A rather frank initiative

amendment calling for prohibition was crushed in 1914 by a substantial margin (355-524). Insurance against prohibition was offered to the voters by the protectors of the American right to imbibe by proposing first, an amendment to suspend the prohibition amendment if passed, and secondly, an amendment prohibiting any further prohibition elections for the next eight years. The first measure won (488-226), but the proposal to muzzle the California electorate was defeated (355-435). The prohibitionists tried again in 1916. Though defeated at the polls, they gained strength to improve substantially their previous showing (436-538). Another prohibitionist effort the same year to close saloons showed similar strength even while going down to defeat (461-505). In 1918 the prohibitionists returned to the fray and once again were overwhelmed by the drinking public, but as before, by an ever narrowing margin. A wine-and-beer-only measure was defeated (256–341) by a substantial vote while bone-dry prohibition was defeated by a scantier 31 thousand margin (275–306).

Once national prohibition was handed down from the federal government to the constituent states, the California electorate continued obdurate when a 1920 referendum proposal for the enforcement of prohibition was offered to the public. The measure was quashed (400–465). However, enforcement of the milder Volstead Act received voter approval two years later by an insubstantial margin (445-411). The thirsty consumer was stymied only a few years by the prohibitionist success. An initiative law for repeal was submitted in 1926 and made a strong showing in the process of defeat (502–565). In 1932 another initiative repeal measure swept the prohibitionists from political power through an overwhelming approval of man's right to consume alcoholic beverages (1,459–658). In the same election a state liquor control measure likewise received substantial voter approval (1,308-730).

At this point the prohibitionist strategy changed from a direct frontal assault to a back-door, local-victory, win-a-little-at-a-time approach. The year 1934 saw a successful effort to pass a measure regulating the sale of liquor (1,262–714), but a local option measure on the same ballot was beaten (497–1,362). Two years later an initiative amendment to establish an alcohol beverage commission was crushed (748-1,432) as was another measure by the supporters of local option (719–1,474).

More than a decade passed before the matter of alcohol again reached the public, this time in the form of an initiative amendment to extend the regulation responsibility regarding the dispensing of drinkable alcohols. In 1948 the measure lost decisively (1,122-2,521). In this same year local option took another drubbing (1,085-2,598). However, in 1954 an alcohoi beverage control act received widespread approval (2,265–1,152), and

two years later it became possible to sell drinks in places other than hotels and restaurants (2,391-2,338). The close vote here reflects a strong aversion to conspicuous availability of alcoholic beverages in spite of continuing powerful California sentiment in favor of liquor consumption.

[blocks in formation]

1948 Extend regulation responsibility. (I)

1,122 2,521

1,085 2,598

2,265 1,152

1948 Local option. (I)

1954 Alcohol Beverage Control Act. (R)

1956 Sell drinks in other than hotels and restaurants. (R)

2,391 2,338

Almost as curious a social phenomenon as the determined opposition to drinking alcohol is the persistent manifestation of piety of a sort in the form of continuous effort to control certain phases of the entertainment business through direct legislation. The initiators of such legislation were frequently the performers or gamblers themselves. Occasionally they were successful, but more frequently defeat at the hands of the voter was their unhappy lot. ▲ 1912 measure to allow horse racing was defeated by a large margin (149– 353). The protectors of public morality took the initiative in 1914 with two measures: one to prohibit prize fights; the other to require one day of rest in seven. The prize fight prohibition was successful (413-327) but the gogetters who wished to work all seven days of the week were vindicated by

public approval even at this early date (290–457). After ten years of quiet, a 1924 measure to permit boxing and wrestling won a narrow 20 thousand vote victory (518-498). This was followed in two years by an effort to obtain the licensing of horse racing. The measure was crushed (362–661). Encouraged by the 1924 boxing and wrestling victory, the prize fight people returned to the fray in 1928 in an attempt to repeal the 1914 prohibition. They were unsuccessful by a large vote (592–935). 1928 must have been a "no" year because measures advanced by the guardians of morality were likewise defeated. An effort to prohibit rodeos and bulldogging was repulsed (509-870). Two years later barbers received public vindication when an effort to close barber shops on Sunday failed almost five to one (214–1,047).

The racing and wagering people tried again in 1932 but with the usual negative results. The vote, however, was much closer than in previous years (904-956). More than a decade passed before the gamblers tried again. In 1946, with California's swollen population as its target, the greyhound racing people made their bid for public support of dog racing. They were rejected by a staggering margin (570-1,907). A 1950 effort to legalize gambling met with a similar stinging rebuff (789-2,675). In the 1958 election Sunday boxing was voted down by a substantial margin (1,874– 2,374). The gamblers have not fared well in California through use of direct legislation.

[blocks in formation]

1928 Prohibit rodeos, bulldogging. (I)

509 870

1928 Close barber shops on Sunday. (I)
1932 License racing and wagering. (I)
1946 License greyhound racing. (I)
1950 Legalize gambling. (I)
1958 Allow Sunday boxing. (I)

In the matter of relations with oriental peoples the story of direct legislation is one of change of heart. Gradually, in a period of less than four

214 1,047

904 956

570 1,907

789 2,675

1,874 2,374

« AnteriorContinuar »