Editing Thomas R. Marshall (section)

===Marshall's constitution===

[[File:Jacob Piatt Dunn.JPG|thumb|right|alt=A photo of the head and shoulders of a man wearing a three piece suit and bow tie. In his forties, his hairline is partially receded and one eyebrow is noticeably higher than the other.|[[Jacob Piatt Dunn]] Jr., with whom Marshall wrote a proposed constitution for Indiana]]

Rewriting the state constitution became Marshall's central focus as governor, and after the General Assembly refused to call a constitutional convention he sought other ways to have a new constitution adopted. He and [[Jacob Piatt Dunn]], a close friend and civic leader, wrote a new constitution that increased the state's regulatory powers considerably, set minimum wages, and gave constitutional protections to unions.<ref>Gray 1977, pp. 290–291.</ref> Many of these reforms were also in the [[Socialist Party of America|Socialist Party]] platform under its leader, [[Terre Haute]] native [[Eugene V. Debs]]. Republicans believed Marshall's constitution was an attempt to win over Debs' supporters, who had a strong presence in Indiana.<ref name="Bennett 2007, p. 114"/><ref name = g238/> The constitution also allowed direct-democracy [[Popular initiative|initiative]]s and [[referendum]]s to be held. The Democratic controlled assembly agreed to the request and put the measure on the ballot. His opponents attacked the direct-democracy provisions, claiming they were a violation of the [[United States Constitution]], which required states to operate [[republic]]an forms of government.<ref name = g238>Gugin and St. Clair, eds., 2006, p. 238.</ref><ref name = b116>{{harvnb|Bennett|2007|p=116}}</ref> The 1910 [[mid-term election|midterm election]]s gave the Democrats control of the Indiana Senate, increasing the constitution's chances of adoption. Marshall presented it to the General Assembly in 1911 and recommended that they submit it to voters in the 1912 election.<ref>{{harvnb|Bennett|2007|p=115}}</ref>

Republicans opposed the ratification process, and were infuriated that the Democrats were attempting to revise the entire constitution without calling a [[Constitutional convention (political meeting)|constitutional convention]], as had been called for in the state's two previous constitutions.<ref name = b116/> Marshall argued that no convention was needed because the existing constitution did not call for one.<ref>Gray 1977, p. 291.</ref> Republicans took the issue to court and the Marion County Circuit Court granted an injunction removing the constitution from the 1912 ballot. Marshall appealed, but the [[Charles E. Cox#Indiana Supreme Court|Indiana Supreme Court]] upheld the decision in a judgment which stated that the [[Constitution of Indiana]] could not be replaced in total without a constitutional convention, based on the precedent set by Indiana's first two constitutions.<ref>{{harvnb|Bennett|2007|p=117}}</ref><ref>{{cite court|litigants=Ellingham v. Dye|vol=172|reporter=Ind.|opinion=336|url=https://cite.case.law/ind/178/336/|date=July 5, 1912}}</ref> Marshall was angry with the decision and delivered a speech attacking the court and accusing it of overstepping its authority. He launched a final appeal to the [[United States Supreme Court]] but left office in January 1913 while the case was still pending. Later that year, the court declined the appeal, finding that the issue was within the sole jurisdiction of the state courts. Marshall was disappointed with the outcome.<ref>Gray 1977, p. 292.</ref><ref>{{cite court|litigants=Marshall v. Dye|vol=231|reporter=U.S.|opinion=250|url=https://cite.case.law/us/231/250/|date=December 1, 1913}}</ref> Subsequent scholars such as Linda Gugin and legal expert James St. Claire have called the process and the document "seriously flawed" and argued that had the constitution been adopted, large parts would probably have been ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts.<ref>Gugin and St. Clair, eds., 2006, p. 239.</ref>