Of the constitutions adopted since 1890 seven have been submitted without reservation — those of New York (1894), Utah (1895), Alabama (1901), Olclahoma (1907), Michigan (1908) and New Mexico and Arizona (1911), though the submission of the constitutions of Utah, Oklahoma, Arizona and New Mexico were required by the Congressional enabling acts. The constitutions of Mississippi (1890), South Carolina (1895), Delaware (1897) Louisiana (1898 and 1913) and Virginia (1902; were not submitted to the people in any mari ner (though in the case of Virginia the le.gis !attire, when calling the convention, required that its work should be submitted to the people) ; and the Kentucicy constitution of 1891 was altered by the convention after the people had approved it The Indiana legislature of 1911 drafted a new constitution, but its sub mission to the people was enjoined by the courts, and in November 1914 the voters de feated a proposal to summon a convention to revise the constitution. Nevertheless the legis lature defied the popular mandate by passing the act of 1917 for a convention in 1918. In Ohio the constitution of 1851 was difficult of amendment or revision owing to the necessity of securing on referendum "a majority of all the electors voting at said election.') Finally a convention was authorized and held in 1912 and at a special election in September of that year the convention submitted 42 separate prop ositions of which 34 were adopted. New Hamp shire has no process of amending through the legislature, but every seven years submits a referendum in respect to the calling of a con vention. The convention of 1889 submitted seven amendments of which five were adopted; the convention of 1902 submitted 10 amendments of which six were adopted; and the convention of 1912 submitted 12 amendments of which only four were adopted. In Rhode Island any revision recommended must be approved by two successive legislatures. In 1898 a proposed revision made by a commission of 15 persons passed the legislature but was defeated at the polls; with a few changes it was repassed and resubmitted in June 1899 but was rejected by a larger vote. In 1912 another commission of nine persons was appointed to recommend another revision and made its report in 1915, which after being approved by two assemblies was Noted upon in 1917. The Connecticut constitution makes no provision for a conven tion, but in 1901, after a referendum, the legis lature summoned a convention, the work of which was rejected at the polls in June 1902. In 1905 the legislature submitted a revised con stitution but this too was rejected in November 1907. In Vermont amendments have suffered at popular elections, two out of 23 submitted in 1880 being accepted, none of the nine offered in 1890 and none of the four offered in 1900 being passed, wherefore in 1908 a commission of five was appointed to propose amendments; eight were proposed in January 1910 and after acceptance by two successive assemblies were passed by the voters in 1913. After Louisiana promulgated its constitution in 1898 every ses sion of the legislature witnessed the introduc tion of numerous amendments until in 1913, owing to the necessity of making new arrange ments to fund the bonded debt of the State, a convention was called which added an article respecting the debt, incorporated previously adopted amendments into the constitution and promulgated it without referendum. In 1912 North Carolina appointed a commission which in 1913 proposed 14 amendments to a special session of the leeislature but though that body accepted 10 of these they were rejected at the polls in November 1914, though the constitution was later amended in 1916.
In connection with the submission of consti tutions to popular approval, some attempts have been made either to enlarge or reduce the elec torate for the purpose of voting on such con stitutional changes. The legislature alone ex tended the electorate in New Jersey (1844) and Rhode Island (1841-42), but in 1821 this was done in New York with the aid of the electorate itself, while in Massachusetts in 1780 the con vention did the extending with the assent of both legislature and electorate. The conven tions of Virginia (1830) and Illinois (1869) had only the assent of the legislature, and the following conventions acted on their own initia tive: Louisiana (1845, 1852), Michigan (1835), Texas (1845), Virginia (1851), West Virginia (1863), Tennessee (1834), Kansas (1859) and Arkansas (1868), the Tennessee and Arkansas conventions reducing the electorate in some par ticulars as well as extending it in others. Elec torates have been reduced also by oaths of al legiance required by Reconstruction acts and by the conventions of Maryland (1864), Mis souri (1865) and New York (1867).
Constitutional Restrictions upon Conven Generally speaking, the only restrictions upon constitutional conventions are those ex pressly contained in the provisions of the State and Federal constitutions, or in the absence of such provisions, those implied in such constitu tions and those implied from the limited func tions of conventions. The existing constitu tional organization is not affected by a constitu tional convention since the latter acts under the restrictions either expressly or impliedly contained in the constitution in force at the time. Professor Dodd says that the convention (Lis a regular organ of the State (although as a rule called only at long intervals)— neither sovereign nor subordinate to the legislature, but independent within its proper sphere. Under this view the legislature cannot bind the con vention as to what shall be placed in the con stitution or as to the exercise of its proper duties . . . [which are] simply to propose a new constitution or to propose constitutional amendments to the people for approval; or in States where the submission of constitutions is not required, to frame and adopt a constitution if they think proper. . . . [Hence] constitu tional conventions should not be subject to con trol by legislative acts.° The new constitution does not become effective until promulgatet by the convention, if such be the provisions of the existing constitution, or until ratified by the people, if this action be required. As an organ of the State and as a legislative body a conven tion must act in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Constitution regarding contracts, ex post facto laws and all other restrictions imposed upon the States by that instrument. If a State constitution provide for the revision or framing of the organic law of the State by the calling of a convention, then such conven tion is impliedly restricted to that one act and the exercise of such powers only as are neces sary to accomplish its object. If the State con stitution should make no provision for a con vention, then such convention acts under the existing constitution and accordingly the gov ernmental departments cannot be superseded or replaced until the new constitution framed by the convention become effective. Hence it is to be presumed theoretically that a constitu tional convention is assembled for a limited and definite purpose and neither can nor does usurp the regular legislative, executive or judicial powers of the existing organs of government. (Consult, however, Hoar, R. S., Conventions,' pp. 164-184). Yet this has not always been the case, during the early Revolutionary and during the Civil War periods, notably in Missouri and the South ern States, though in the former period, as previously stated, the conventions primarily were provisional governments and the work of framing constitutions was only incidental. Analogous conditions obtained in Missouri in 1861-63 and in some of the other Southern States, so that the conventions were probably justified in acting beyond the limits of their regular duties. Some of the Reconstruction conventions in 1865-68, which were called to frame organic laws and establish governmenM not only performed these duties but arrogated to themselves all the powers and functions of the regular legislatures. Similarly the conven tions of 1890 in Mississippi, of 1895 in South Carolina, of 1898 in Louisiana and of 1901 in Alabama acted as though they possessed powers in excess of those connected With the framing of constitutions. In the South Carolina con vention a motion was even made that there be no session of the legislature and that the con vention should do its work. The legislative act for the Michigan convention of 1907-08 re quired that the new constitution be submitted at the April election of 1908, but the convention decided upon the following November, and by mandamus proceedings compelled the Secretary of State to recognize the convention's suprem acy. In 1867 and 1894 the New York conven tion sat beyond the time fixed by the legislature, as did also the Alabama convention of 1901, but while the New York delegates received no extra compensation, the Alabama convention resolved that the pay of its members should continue after, the time allotted until the com pletion of the work. But it would seem that a convention has no power to appropriate money, since in most cases the constitutions provide that money shall be paid from the State treas ury only upon a legislative appropriation. In a number of cases such actions have been ques tioned and have been held invalid by the courts, though other courts have upheld them.