## Facts

- A California voter petitioned for a writ of mandate to stop the Secretary of State from certifying and submitting a proposed initiative constitutional measure at the November 2, 1948 general election.
- California’s Constitution allowed constitutional amendments by initiative, but required constitutional revision to proceed through the constitutional convention procedure in article XVIII, section 2.
- The proposed initiative, commonly described as a “California Bill of Rights” measure, was exceptionally lengthy and would have altered numerous provisions of the state constitution.
- The measure would have made broad, structural changes to the organization and powers of state government, affecting many existing constitutional articles.
- Proponents of the initiative intervened to oppose the petition; the Secretary of State, represented by the Attorney General, also opposed the petition.
- The state supreme court considered the measure’s scope and effect and concluded it functioned as a constitutional revision rather than an amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether a proposed initiative that substantially restructures the constitution and state government is a “revision” rather than an “amendment.”
2. Whether, under article XVIII, a constitutional revision may be submitted to voters through the initiative process instead of the convention procedure.

## Decision

- The court granted a peremptory writ of mandate.
- The court held the initiative proposal was a constitutional revision, not a mere amendment.
- Because the constitution provided for revision only through the convention process and did not authorize revision by initiative, the measure was outside the initiative power.
- The Secretary of State was ordered not to certify or submit the measure and to refrain from acts facilitating its submission to the electorate.

## Legal Principles

- The initiative power is to be construed liberally, and doubts are generally resolved in favor of permitting initiatives to proceed.
- The initiative power remains limited by the constitution’s allocation of constituent authority and prescribed procedures.
- A measure that, in substance and effect, extensively and substantially alters the basic governmental plan constitutes a constitutional revision.
- When the constitution specifies a particular method for revision and does not authorize revision by initiative, a revisory measure cannot be placed on the ballot as an initiative amendment.

## Conclusion

The court prevented submission of an initiative that would have comprehensively altered the constitution and state governmental structure, holding that such a proposal was a revision requiring the constitution’s convention-based revision procedure rather than the initiative amendment process.


McFadden v. Jordan, 32 Cal. 2d 330, 196 P.2d 787 (Cal. 1948)