"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; Indeed, It's the only thing that ever has." Dr. Margaret Mead.

Legal

State Initiatives, Referenda, and Recalls

This report analyzes the concepts of state initiatives, referenda, and recalls as used in the various states and the District of Columbia and concentrates essentially on the statewide initiatives, referenda, and recalls by citizen petition. This report, utilizing certain computer database searches, lists the significant state constitutional and statutory provisions having initiative, referendum and recall provisions.

Approximately twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have certain constitutional and statutory provisions relating some form of statewide initiative for constitutional amendments and/or statutory enactments. Almost all of the states provide for some type of referenda for approval or disapproval by the voters on constitutional amendments proposed by state legislatures. Approximately twenty-five states and the District of Columbia provide for some form of statewide referendum by citizen petition for certain statutory enactments. In addition, approximately seventeen states and the District of Columbia have certain statewide recall procedures for the removal of certain public and elected officers of government. There are no federal statutory or constitutional provisions providing for a national initiative, national referendum or national recall.

An initiative refers to the process whereby voters may propose laws and/or constitutional amendments and enact them independently of the legislature. There are basically two types of initiatives, a constitutional initiative, which allows voters to initiate amendments to the state constitution and a statutory initiative, which allows voters to enact or amend a statute without any action by the legislature. Some states have both types of initiatives.

Unlike the initiative, a referendum is the process whereby voters may express their judgment on statutes enacted by the legislature and repeal them by a simple majority of the vote. There are several types of referenda: petition by the people, submission by the legislature, and constitutional requirement. First, the petition by the people to approve or disapprove statutes recently enacted by the legislature is the type of referendum this report is concerned with primarily. The second type of referendum is the legislative referendum, which often refers to the process whereby the legislature or a local municipal or county governing body refers legislation voluntarily to the electorate for their approval before the statute can be enacted into law. The third type is a referendum that is required by the constitution to be submitted to the people regarding certain questions. Most states have legislative referenda; however, this report is primarily concerned with statewide referenda by citizen petition.

A recall provision is that which permits the voters to express their views on retaining or removing an elected and/or public official from office and actually removing such official from office by casting a majority of the popular votes in a special election for removal. Many state recall provisions exempt judicial offices.

INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM AND RECALL
BY CITIZEN PETITION

I. INTRODUCTION

 

A. Background

Approximately twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have constitutional and statutory provisions relating to some form of statewide initiative for constitutional amendments and/or statutory enactments. Almost all of the states provide for some type of referenda for approval or disapproval by the voters of constitutional amendments proposed by state legislatures.

Approximately twenty-five states and the District of Columbia provide for some form of statewide referendum by citizen petition for certain statutory enactments. Approximately fifteen states and the District of Columbia have statewide recall procedures for the removal of certain public and elected officers of government. There are no federal statutory or constitutional provisions providing for a national initiative, national referendum or national recall.

 

(1) Initiative

An initiative1 refers to the process whereby voters may propose laws and/or constitutional amendments and enact them independently of the legislature. There are basically two types of initiatives, a constitutional initiative, which allows voters to initiate amendments to the state constitution and a statutory initiative, which allows voters to enact or amend a statute without any action by the legislature. Some states have both types of initiatives.2 The initiative is somewhat of a western phenomenon in the United States. Eleven western states have some type of statewide initiative.3 Eight midwestern and plains states have statewide initiative provisions. Only two eastern states and the District of Columbia provide for statewide initiatives,5 and only two southern

states have statewide initiative provisions.6 Many states, in addition to those mentioned, have local initiative provisions which are applicable only to local jurisdictions which are not covered by this report.

Generally, the procedure of a statewide initiative may begin with a preliminary filing procedure, although some states having initiatives do not cave such procedures. Preliminary filing procedures often require the proposition or initiative measure to be filed with a public officer such as the lieutenant governor, attorney general or secretary of state for review of any legal or constitutional problems, along with a nominal filing fee and a certain number of signatures. Once this is done, a petition drive is organized for obtaining a certain number of signatures such as ten percent of the total number of votes cast for governor at the last general election. After the requisite number of signatures have been obtained for the petition for an initiative, it is filed usually with the election officer of the state, which is generally the secretary of state, within a required period of time, such as four months before the next general election, who then sees to it that it is properly placed on the ballot.

Generally, a majority of the popular vote is required to enact an initiative measure. The effective date of an initiative measure may vary according to the provisions of the various jurisdictions, such as from the time of the certification of the results of the election to ninety days after an election or upon a certain day such as July 1 in a given year. In many states, the executive veto is not allowed, and the legislature may not amend or repeal the initiative measure. Also, many states that have the initiative by citizen petition provide for certain restrictions on it as to such matters as: revenue measures, appropriations, acts affecting the judiciary, local or special legislation, laws affecting peace, health, or safety.

(2) Referendum

Unlike the initiative, a referendum is the process whereby voters may express their judgment on statutes enacted by the legislature. 7 There are several types of referenda: petition by the people, submission by the legislature, and constitutional requirement. First, the petition by the people to approve or disapprove statutes recently enacted by the legislature is the type of referendum this report is concerned with primarily. The second type of referendum is the legislative referendum which often refers to the process whereby the legislature or a local municipal or county governing body refers legislation voluntarily to the electorate for their approval before the statute can be enacted into law. And the third type is a referendum that is required by the constitution to be submitted to the people regarding certain questions.

Like the initiative by citizen petition, the statewide referendum by citizen petition to approve or disapprove state statutory provisions recently enacted by the state legislature is essentially a western phenomenon. Most states do have some form of statewide legislative referendum provisions by which certain legislative enactments, constitutional and/or statutory, can be referred to the voters for approval or disapproval. Also most of the fifty states have some type of local referendum for municipalities and counties regarding such diverse issues as school districts, water districts, and agricultural products. This report does not attempt to focus on the many diverse types of legislative referenda and local referenda which do not involve referenda by citizen petition.

The focus of this report is primarily on referendum by citizen petition, which is much more restricted and is only employed by about half of the states. Approximately twenty-five states and the District of Columbia have some form of statewide referendum by citizen petition; of these states, twelve are western states;8 ten are midwestern and plains states;9 and, four jurisdictions are in the east including Maine, Maryland, and Massachusetts as well as the District of Columbia.

Often the procedure for a statewide referendum by citizen petition begins with the collection of a required percentage of signatures of qualified voters, such as two percent, five percent or percentage a required of the number of qualified voters voting for all candidates for governor in the last preceding general election at which a governor was elected. In a few states, preliminary filing provisions require an application for a referendum petition to be filed with a state officer such as the secretary of state, the lieutenant governor, or the attorney general along with a statement of the referendum, and sometimes a nominal filing charge and a requisite number of signatures. After the referendum petition has the requisite percentage of signatures, it is filed usually with the secretary of state within a required period of time, such as ninety days after the adjournment of the legislature which had passed the statute-in question. The referendum petition is then usually placed on the ballot to be voted upon at the next statewide general, special, or primary election. In most states, a majority of the popular vote is required for the referendum measure to be successful in approving or disapproving a statute. In addition, the effective date of a referendum petition varies from state to state from the time of certification of the vote to thirty days after the certification of the vote. Many states also restrict the referendum from certain laws that relate to dedication of revenues, appropriations, support and maintenance of state government and/or institutions, and laws affecting the public peace, health, or safety.

(3) Recall

A recall provision which permits the voters to express their views on retaining or removing an elected and/or public official from office and actually removing such official from office by casting a majority of the popular vote in a special election for removal.10 Approximately seventeen states have a recall statute that is applicable to various elective and/or public officials. Many of these states having recall provisions exempt judicial offices. Many states have local recall provisions relating to municipal, county, and other local offices, which this report is not concerned with.

Like the initiative and the referendum, recall is more of a western phenomenon with nine western states 11 and four midwestern and plains states12 having most of the statewide recall provisions of the fifty states and the District of Columbia. Among the eastern jurisdictions, only the District of Columbia has a recall provision. And of the southern states, Georgia, Louisiana and Virginia have recall statutes. However, in Virginia, the recall statutes not provide for a special recall election, as do the recall statutes in the other states and the District of Columbia, but for a recall trial which may even be decided by a jury trial. 13 Some states do not allow recall petitions to be filed within a certain number of days after being elected to office (e.g., GA. 180 days) or within a certain number of days before the term of office ends, (e.g., GA. 180 days; Georgia Code Ann., 21-4-5).

Most state recall provisions provide for a petition to be signed by a required percentage of the voters who cast votes in the preceding general election. The petition lists the reason for the recall of the elected or public official and is usually filed with the state officer who received the petition for nomination for that office. Some states require a preliminary filing with the secretary of state or the lieutenant governor to review the sufficiency of the recall petition before signatures are collected. The time for the recall election varies from state to state, such as sixty to ninety days after the petition for recall is filed; it is usually held in most states within three months after the filing of the petition.

In most states, a simple majority of the popular votes is sufficient to recall an official and, generally, as soon as the election results are certified, the official who lost the recall vote is deemed recalled. Some states, such as Nevada, allow other candidates to be nominated and voted for at a special recall election, and the candidate receiving the highest number of votes is declared elected for the remainder of the term.

B. National Initiative and Referendum

Unlike many state constitutional and statutory provisions, the United States Constitution makes no provision for an initiative or referendum process on a national level. Initiatives and referenda have generally been left to the power of the states. Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that. "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...." In Phillips v. Payne, 16 the United States Supreme Court suggested that, absent a constitutional amendment, a Congressional effort to place proposed legislation before the people for their approval through a referendum would constitute an unlawful delegation of power. In the words of the Court: "Congress, in violation of the Constitution, passed an act purporting to authorize a vote to be taken by the people of Alexandria County to determine whether the county should be retroceded to the State of Virginia, and declaring, that, in case a majority of the votes should be cast in favor of retrocession, the county should be retroceded and for ever relinquished in full and absolute right and jurisdiction"15

In past congresses, some legislative proposals have been introduced that would have provided for a national initiative and/or referendum usually without any significant legislative activity. One of the first bills for a national initiative and referendum was H.J. Res. 44 introduced in the 60th Congress, First Session in 1907 by Rep. Elmer L. Fulton of Oklahoma to provide for the use of the initiative and referendum on a national level. This bill would have provided for the direct initiative of both statutes and constitutional amendments with signature requirements of five percent and ten percent for constitutional amendments from at least fifteen states based on the votes cast in the most recent presidential election; the referendum procedure was applicable to laws only. 17 Various proposals for a national initiative and/or referendum have been introduced in Congress since then, and none has received serious legislative action. The most serious legislative action occurred during the 95th Congress (1977-1978) when hearings were held on S.J. Res. 67 which provided for an amendment to the Constitution with respect to the proposal and enactment of laws by popular vote of the people of the United States.18

A constitutional amendment would be necessary to delegate to the people on a national level initiative and referendum powers in order to be in compliance with Article I which vests all legislative powers in the Congress. However, statutory delegations to private persons in the nature of contingency legislation have passed court tests. For example, certain statutes, which provide that restrictions upon the production or marketing of agriculture commodities are to become operative only upon a favorable vote by a prescribed majority of those persons affected, have been upheld. Congress may provide that a referendum be employed to implement legislation which it has enacted. Certain federal agricultural statutes utilize a referendum procedure as an aid in administering agricultural laws. Moreover, such referenda have been upheld by the courts against arguments that they constitute unlawful delegations of legislative power.

In Currin v. Wallace20 the United States Supreme Court held that the provision for a referendum vote of tobacco growers is merely a condition upon the application of the Congressional regulation and does not involve an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. 21 According to the Court: "Congress has merely placed a restriction upon its own regulation by withholding its operation as to a given market 'unless two-thirds of the growers vote favor it.'. . . " This is not a case where a group of producers may make the law and force it upon a minority...." "Here it is Congress that exercises its legislative authority in making the regulation and in prescribing the conditions of its application. The required favorable vote upon the referendum is one of these conditions."22 The rationale of the Court is that such a provision does not involve any delegation of legislative power since Congress has merely placed a restriction on its own regulation by withholding its operation unless it is approved in a certain referendum.23 Thus, such referenda are distinguishable from efforts to create legislation ab initio through the referendum process.

It would seem that arguments may be made that other acts of Congress could involve similar referenda that would withhold the operations of the acts contingent upon the approval of the people affected by them. This would be one method of providing for a national referendum by federal statute rather than-by a constitutional amendment. However, it is questionable whether initiatives, whereby voters propose laws and constitutional amendments and enact them independent of Congress, could be authorized by federal statute since it would affect the delegation of power clause of Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution, which bestows such power exclusively upon Congress. But, some sort of indirect initiative on a national level, whereby the petition process causes the proposed measure to be referred to Congress for active consideration, would seem to avoid the delegation of powers problem that a direct initiative would have. Since there is no enactment of legislation, an indirect initiative would not involve any delegation of legislative power, but would only refer legislation to Congress for active consideration that the people deem to be necessary, and then it would be up to Congress to enact such legislation. The rational of the Court in Cufrmn vs. Wallace,21 in upholding the constitutionality of a referendum vote that determined whether a federal act would go into effect, would seem to support the concept of an indirect national initiative that would refer legislation to Congress, which would express the sense of the people on certain matters, and not involve any delegation of legislative power.

Congress could also, by its power to expend for the general welfare, make funds available to the states on a voluntary basis for the purpose of obtaining the sense of the people on particular matters by some sort of advisory referendum to be conducted by the states. There does not seem to be a readily available federal mechanism to conduct such an advisory referendum although such a referendum could possibly be conducted on Internal Revenue Service income tax forms or on the decennial census forms by putting certain questions on the forms and requesting answers to them. These are examples of the type of national referendum, which would be advisory in nature, that could be authorized by a federal statute rather than by a constitutional amendment.

Some of the arguments in support of a national initiative and/or referendum note that the national initiative and referendum would bring the power of the federal government nearer to the people and make the government more responsive to the people. Moreover, the national initiative and referendum would provide open debate by the people on controversial issues and would give the people a direct voice in the decision-making process. The use of the national initiative and referendum arguably would help bring about true government by the people and provide a concrete means for citizens participation in the policy-making function of the Government. Also, it is argued that the national initiative and referendum would be a means of providing both the executive and legislative branches of the Government with a clear view of public opinion-end allowing the people to express themselves on controversial issues. It is noted that the national initiative and referendum may be a method of restoring public confidence in the federal government since the use of the initiative and referendum could make the people feel closer to the law-making process and lessen the sense of alienation from the Government said to be experienced by many. Such an initiative and referendum, in involving people in the law-making process, arguably would increase voter interest and participation in the political process. In addition, it is argued that the history of the initiative and referendum on the state and local levels has shown that it is a workable democratic process. Supporters also assert that the national initiative and referendum may make the Government in its legislative and executive branches more accountable to the people.

Some of the arguments against a national initiative and referendum point out that they would be dominated by special interest groups and would degenerate into emotional campaigns financed by such groups and encouraged by political demagogues. In addition, a national initiative and referendum would require voters to make decisions by a straight yes-or-no verdict on issues that are quite complex without the benefit of research, hearings, and staff investigation. Moreover, it is argued that some national initiatives and referenda may be too complex for most voters to make intelligent decisions in the way they will cast their votes since they do not have the knowledge and experience that Members of Congress and their staffs have. It is asserted that a national initiative and referendum would undermine the present form of representative government by bypassing the existing system of checks and balances. Arguments are also made that a national initiative and referendum would encourage sectionalism throughout the country whereby larger industrial states could influence the passage of initiative and referendum measures detrimental to smaller less industrial states.

C. National Recall

There is no federal statute providing for the recall of the President or Vice President or of a United States Senator or Representative, and the United States Constitution does not provide for a national recall. Before a President or Vice President, Senator, or Representative could be recalled, a constitutional amendment providing for such a recall would have to be adopted.

In regard to Senators and Representatives, they may lose their seats, aside from death or resignation, during the term for which they have been elected if (1) they are appointed to a civil office during the time for which they are elected;25 (2) they are elected to an incompatible office such as governor of a state;26 (3) they are expelled, with the concurrence of two-thirds of the members, by the respective House, 27 or (4) they are disqualified if after having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution, they shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or given aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States.28 These are the only removal procedures set forth in the Constitution for involuntary removal from office of Senator or Representative.

In the Articles of Confederation, state legislatures were authorized to recall their delegates to Congress3~ Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 rejected such recall provisions for Members of Congress, and did not incorporate any recall provisions in the United States Constitution.

Some states have recall provisions that arguably may be applicable to Members of Congress since the scope of the recall of many provisions apply to all elected officials which could conceivably mean Members of Congress. Michigan specifically includes Members of Congress within its recall statuTe24~ In Arizona candidates for the United States Senate or House of Representatives may file a pre-primary statement or pledge promising to resign if not re-elected in a recall vote.31 And in Wisconsin the qualified electors of any congressional district may petition for the recall of any elective officer. 32

Under Article I, Section 5, Clause 1, the Constitution provides that "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own Members...." States cannot judge the qualifications and elections of Senators and Representatives since this is left to each respective House under Article I, Section 5, Clause i2~ States cannot prescribe qualifications for Members of Congress other than those set forth in the Constitution under Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 ~ for United States Representatives and under Article I, Section Three, Clause 3 ~ for United States Senators. Such constitutional provisions manifest three distinct qualifications for Members of Congress: age, citizenship, and inhabitancy; such provisions have been construed by the courts as being exclusive and as setting the only qualifications which may validly be required for candidates for Congressional office.

The constitutional qualifications are paramount and exclusive, and State constitutions and laws can neither add to nor take away from them. In case of a conflict, provisions in the Federal Constitution prevail, so that mere possession of such qualifications prescribed in the Constitution makes one eligible for election to Congress without any disqualification therefor by state constitutional or statutory provisions that make the holders of particular offices ineligible for any office A0 In Powell v. McCormack, the United States Supreme Court in 1969 held that, under Article I, Section 5, Clause 1, providing that each House of Congress shall be the judge of the qualifications of its own Members, Congress alone can judge the qualifications of its Members and that it is limited exclusively to only those standing qualifications that are prescribed in the Constitution.37 Thus, making a United States Senator or United Stbtes Representative subject to removal by a state recall election would arguably make a state the judge of the qualifications of Members of Congress in violation of Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 and would arguably constitute an additional qualification for congressional office in violation of the Qualifications Clauses of Article I, Sections 3 and 5. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution,38 such provisions of the U.S. Constitution would prevail over state constitutional and statutory provisions. Also United States Senators and Representatives are federal and not state officers, and states cannot exercise the same jurisdiction over federal officers as their own officers.39

The matter of the recall of Members of Congress was the subject of an unreported judicial decision of an Idaho state district court in October 1967 in which a suit was dismissed which attempted to compel the Secretary of State to accept petitions seeking the recall of a United States Senator from Idaho. The judge, in dismissing the suit, found that a state recall of a United States Senator would violate Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 of the Constitution which provides that each House of Congress "...shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members...."

Under the impeachment provisions of the Constitution, the President and Vice President can be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.10 This is the only removal procedure that the Constitution provides for in the case of the President and Vice President, aside from resignation for disability which is the subject of the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution. There is no federal or national recall for the President and/or Vice President besides impeachment, and, as in the case of United States Senators and Representatives, it would take a constitutional amendment to allow the states to recall the President and Vice President before such a recall would be legal and constitutional.

Table of States Having Initiative, Referendums and Recall By Citizen Petition

STATE Initiative Referendum Recall
Alabam None None None
Alaska Statutes Statutes Yes
Arizona Statutes & Const.Amend Statutes Yes
Arkansas Statutes & Const.Amend Statutes & Const.Amend None
California Statutes & Const.Amend Statutes Yes
Colorado Statutes & Const.Amend Statutes Yes
Connecticut None None None
Delaware None None None
District of Columbia Statutes Statutes Yes
Florida Const.Amend only None None
Georgia None None Yes
Hawaii None None None
Idaho Statutes Statutes & Const.Amend Yes
Illinois Amend.of Art.lV of Const Public Questions None
Indiana None None None
Iowa None None None
Kansas None None Yes
Kentucky None Tax Statutes None
South Carolina None None None
South Dakota Statutes & Const Amend & Const. Convention Statutes None
Tennessee None None None
Texas None None None
Utah Statutes Statutes None
Vermont None None None
Virginia None None Recall trial not recall election
Washington Statutes Statutes Yes
West Virginia None None None
Wisconsin None None Yes
Wyoming Statutes Statutes None

Footnotes

  1. Blacks Law Dictionary 6th ed. defines "initiative" as "[A]n electoral process whereby designated percentages of the electorate may initiate legislative or constitutional changes through the filing of formal petitions to be acted on by the legislature or the total electorate. The power of the people to propose bills and laws, and to enact or reject them at the polls independent of legislative assembly." Blacks Law Dictionary, 784(6th ed. 1990).
  2. Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and South Dakota.
  3. Western initiative states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
  4. Midwestern and plains initiative states: Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.
  5. Eastern initiative jurisdictions: District of Columbia, Maine, and Massachusetts.
  6. Southern initiative states: Arkansas and Florida.
  7. Blacks Law Dictionary 6th ed. defines "referendum" as The process of referring to the electorate for approval a proposed new state constitution or amendment (constitutional referendum) or of a law passed by the legislature (statutory referendum). Reservation by people of state, or local subdivision thereof, of right to have submitted for their approval or rejection, under prescribed conditions, any law or part of law passed by lawmaking body." Blacks Law Dictionary, 1281 (6th ed. 1990).
  8. referendum states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
  9. Midwestern and plains referendum states: Arkansas, Illinois [public questions only], Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.
  10. Blacks Law Dictionary 6th ed. defines "recall" as "[A] method of removal of official in which power of removal is either granted to or reserved by the people. Right or procedure by which a public official may be removed from office before the end of his term of office by a vote of people to be taken on the filing of a petition signed by required number of qualified voters." Blacks Law Dictionary, 1267 (6th ad. 1990).
  11. Western recall states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
  12. Midwestern and plains states: Kansas, Michigan, North Dakota, and Wisconsin.
  13. Virginia Code Annotated, 24.1-79.1 to 24.1-79.10.
  14. see Nevada Constitution., Article 2, 9 (1991).
  15. 92 U.S. 130 (1875).
  16. Id., 131.
  17. See generally, H.J.Res. 44, 60th Congress (1907).
  18. Voter Initiative Constitutional Amendment; Hearings on S.J. Rae. 67 Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Comm. of the Judiciary, 95th Cong., lot Sees., Dec. 13 and 14, 1977.
  19. Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1(1939); United States v. Rock Royal Co-Operative, 307 U.S. 533 (1939).
  20. 306 U.S. 1, 15 (1939).
  21. Tobacco Inspection Act of August 23, 1935, 49 Stat. 731.
  22. 306 U.S. at 15-16.
  23. Thid.
  24. 306 U.S. 1 (1939).
  25. U.S. Const., Article I, Section 6, Clause 2.
  26. Hinds Precedents of the House of Representatives, vol. 1, cbs. 15, 16.
  27. U.S. Const., Article I, Section 5, Clause 2.
  28. U.S. Counts. Amend. XIV, 53.
  29. Articles of Confederation, art. V.
  30. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann., 168.121. 168.149.
  31. Ariz. Rev. Stats., 19-221, 19-222.
  32. Wise. Const., art. Xlfl, 12.
  33. Koegh v. Homer, 8 F. Supp. 933 (D. III. 1954), Burnchell v. State Board of Election Commissioners, 252 Ky. 853,88 S.W. 2d 427 (1934); State ~ rel. 25 Voters v. Seivig, 170 Minn. 406, 212 NW. 603 (1927).
  34. U.S. Const., art. I, 2, ci. 2 provides that "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the Age of twenty-five Years and have been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. "
  35. ---missing footnote 35 -->
  36. Tj.S. Const., art. I, 3, ci. 3 provides that "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
  37. See generally, State ex rel. Chandler v. Howell, 104 Wash. 99, 175 P.569(1918); State ex rel. Wittengel v. Zimmerman, 249 Wise. 237,24 N.W. 24504,504,508(1940); Shub v. Simpeon, 196 Md. 177,76 & 24232(1950); Danielson v. Fztzsimmons, 232 Minn. 149,44 N.W. 24484(1950); Helena v. Collier, 217 Md. 93, 141 X2d 908 (1958); Power v. McCormick, 395 U.S. 486, 550 (1969). 395 U.S. at 500.
  38. U.S. Const., art. VI, 2.
  39. Danzelson v. Fitzsimmon.9, 232 Minn. 149, 44 N.W. 24484(1950).
  40. U.S. Const., art. II, 4.