And whether the prescribed procedure is being followed is a matter for judicial determination when the organic law permits such inquiry while the legislation is in process.") (citations omitted); Larkin v Gronna , 69 N.D. 234, 242, 285 N.W. 59 (1939) ("[T]he people themselves must follow the constitutional method prescribed [for amending their constitution]. To do otherwise would be revolutionary ....

When a petition for an initiated measure is filed with the Secretary of State, he must study the petition to see that it has a proper ballot title and then must submit it under the ballot title so prepared. Larkin v. Gronna, 69 N.D. 234, 285 N.W. 59. Powers given cities by the legislature can only be taken away by due process and proper procedure under constitutional provisions.

McAdams v. Henley, supra. Still, it is quite generally held that after a proposed constitutional amendment has been ratified by the people, every reasonable presumption, both of law and fact, will be indulged in favor of its validity. Southern Railway Co. v. Fowler, 497 S.W.2d 891 (Tenn., 1973); Board of Liquidation, etc. v. Whitney-Central Trust Savings Bank, 168 La. 560, 122 So. 850 (1929); Hammond v. Clark, 136 Ga. 313, 71 S.E. 479 (1911); People v. Sours, 31 Colo. 369, 74 P. 167 (1903); Keenan v. Price, 68 Idaho 423, 195 P.2d 662 (1948); State v. Cooney, 70 Mont. 355, 225 P. 1007 (1924); Larkin v. Gronna, 69 N.D. 234, 285 N.W. 59 (1939). See McKenzie v. City of DeWitt, 196 Ark. 1115, 121 S.W.2d 71.

“[T]his restriction is a limitation on legislation only.” Larkin v. Gronna, 69 N.D. 234, 240, 285 N.W. 59, 62 (1939). See also State ex rel. Cleveringa v. Klein, 63 N.D. 514, 526, 249 N.W. 118, 124 (1933) (provision imposes “constitutional limitations on the power of the Legislature”).

A corollary to the foregoing principle is the oft-stated proposition that "[t]he people are presumed to know what they want, to have understood the proposition submitted to them in all of its implications, and by their approval vote to have determined that [the] amendment is for the public good and expresses the free opinion of a sovereign people." Larkin v. Gronna, 69 N.D. 234, 285 N.W. 59, 63 (1939). Kahalekai v. Doi, 60 Haw. 324, 331, 590 P.2d 543, 549 (1979).

" 164 W. Va. at 88, 261 S.E.2d at 69; see also Charleston Transit Co. v. Condry, 140 W. Va. 651, 659, 86 S.E.2d 391, 396 (1955) (discussing constitutional amendment approval and noting "The people make them [constitutions][,] the people adopt them, the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common-sense. . . ." (quoting 1 Story on the Constitution, 5th ed., Sec. 451)); Larkin v. Gronna, 69 N.D. 234, 285 N.W. 59, 63 (1939) ("The people are presumed to know what they want, to have understood the proposition submitted to them in all of its implications, and by their approval vote to have determined that this amendment is for the public good and expresses the free opinion of a sovereign people."). The final case considered by the circuit court was Bane v. Board of Education, 178 W. Va. 749, 364 S.E.2d 540 (1987), a case which involved the issue of whether a local board of education had discretion to allocate special levy funds approved for salary supplements.

A corollary to the foregoing principle is the oft-stated proposition that "[t]he people are presumed to know what they want, to have understood the proposition submitted to them in all of its implications, and by their approval vote to have determined that [the] amendment is for the public good and expresses the free opinion of a sovereign people." Larkin v. Gronna, 69 N.D. 234, 285 N.W. 59, 63 (1939). III.

The expressed will of the people is not thus lightly to be disregarded and defeated on purely technical grounds. 11 Am.Jur., Constitutional Law, § 32; 16 C.J.S. Contitutional Law § 9, P. 60; Swanson v. State, 132 Neb. 82, 271 N.W. 264, 267; Larkin v. Gronna, 69 N.D. 234, 285 N.W. 59, 63; Keenan v. Price, 68 Idaho 423, 434, 195 P.2d 662; Lewis v. Woodall, 72 Idaho 16, 236 P.2d 91; Boise City v. Better Homes, 72 Idaho 441, 448, 243 P.2d 303; Keyes v. Class "B" School Dist. No. 421, 74 Idaho 314, 320, 261 P.2d 811; People ex rel. Elder v. Sours, 31 Colo. 369, 74 P. 167. Judgment affirmed.

"The people are presumed to know what they want, to have understood the proposition submitted to them in all of its implications, and by their approval vote to have determined that this amendment is for the public good and expresses the free opinion of a sovereign people." Larkin v. Gronna, 69 N.D. 234, 285 N.W. 59, at page 63. Courts should, after an amendment has been adopted, be slow to declare the same unconstitutional on technical grounds, unless the substantial requirements of the constitution have been violated in the submission.

Section 64 of the state constitution governs legislation and prevents the amendment or revision of an existing statute by incorporating or referring to some other measure by reference to the title only. Larkin v. Gronna, 69 N.D. 234, 285 N.W. 59; State ex rel. Strutz v. Baker, 71 N.D. 153, 299 N.W. 574. CHRISTIANSON, Ch. J.