Aсtion to enjoin the election commissioner in Douglas county from proceeding, under chapter 196, Laws 1919, providing for the election of delegates to a constitutional convention, on thе ground that the law is unconstitutional. Prom a judgment on sustaining the demurrer to the petition, plaintiff appeals.
Chapter 196, unlike the general law for primary elections and nominations of candidates, рrovides for the nomination of delegates to the convention by petition only, without party designation, on printed- ballot. It requires the signatures of five per cent, of the electors in each distriсt and verification by ^ ' h of five of them ; whereas, under the general law., V A; application to representatives, not more than 2D ¡ signers to a petition, nor such verification, is requisa-
It is contended thаt these changes from the general law render the law unconstitutional as violative of section 2, art. XV, Constitution, providing for the election of members to a constitutional convention, which con
In construing Constitutions, the same as with other written instruments, thе main inquiry is: "What was the intent1? In Barkley v. Pool,
With this in mind, and also the rule of construction that laws will not be construed to be unconstitutional unless plainly so, we will considеr what was intended by the above-quoted words of the Constitution. We are of opinion that they refer only to the manner of election of representatives that then prevailed and as set out in thе Constitution itself. At that time our later enactments, governing primary elections and nominations by petition, were unknown, and the words, “chosen in the same manner,” could not have referred to these later enactments, nor have anticipated present methods of nomination. The fact is, the manner of elections and the manner of nominations are different subjects of consideration. The Constitution-makers had only the former in mind. They wished to preserve to the people the
The enactment is to be construed as mandatory, so that a statute, allowing the governor to appoint members of thе convention, or providing that they shall be chosen by the legislature itself, or in any manner other than by ballot at a free election by all qualified voters of the state, would be unconstitutional. It cannоt be. construed to intend to prohibit matters of mere form and machinery, that the people may deem necessary for securing a fair election of the delegates to the conventiоn.
The law, evidently for the purpose of concentrating the choice of the people at the election, provided that, if the number of candidates equals or exceeds threе times the number of delegates to be chosen, then a special primary election should be held and the number reduced to two times the number to bé chosen; otherwise not. It follows that in some districts it may happen that three candidates would appear on the ballot, and in others only two. It is urged that this is special or class legislation, violative of section 15, art. Ill, Constitution. We think not. The law is general and restricted by its terms to no particular locality; it operates equally upon all of a group of objects; it is based on a rational difference of situation and is not a speciаl law.
The provision requiring the oath of five signers to a' petition is objected to as an impediment and hindrance to the voter’s right to have freedom in the matter of
Chapter 196 also provides for the election of delegates to the constitutional convention at a special and not the general election. The question is raised whether this prоvision is not contrary to section 2, art. XV, Constitution, above quoted, and also to section 13, art. XVI, Constitution, which provides that all officers (except certain ones named) “by the Constitution or laws madе elective by the people” shall be elected at a general election therein provided for.
We are satisfied that, while in some cases the time of doing a thing may be part of the manner of doing it, ordinarily this is not the case, and is not in this instance. Bankers Life Ins. Co. v. Robbins, 59 Neb 170; Opinion of the Justices, 76 N. H. 586.
We are also of opinion that members of the constitutional convention are not officers intended to be embraced in the рrovisions of section 13, supra. They are not constitutional officers in a strict sense; they are officers who create a Constitution, rather than officers who are created by the Constitution. Sectiоn 13, read in connection with section 14, which has to do with terms of office, would indicate that those provisions have to do only with officers elected who have fixed terms of office, and should be elected at an election called with reference to the time of the beginning of their terms. The members, of the convention have no fixed term of office, and, by the Constitution itself, the conventiоn may be called at any time’ within three months after the election of ’ its members.
The drafting of a new Constitution is likely to enlist the attention of the entire people as much as or more than any prоposition that would come before them.,
The initiative and referendum amendment, also voted after the Constitution of 1875 was adopted, has a bearing upon the question. Under this amendment, changes in the fundamental law, drafted by a faction or party, may be submitted to the people for adoption. Where the changes are radical and uncertain, it may well be better to have them formulated in a convention elected by all the people and after extended discussion.
AFFIRMED.