Hawke v. Smith (No. 2)
Headline: Ruling blocks states from submitting proposed constitutional amendments to popular referendums, reversing Ohio’s decision and holding that state referendum requirements cannot control the federal amendment process.
Holding:
- Prevents states from using popular referendums to block federal amendment ratification.
- Removes Ohio’s referendum obstacle to ratifying the Nineteenth Amendment.
- Clarifies that Article V governs the amendment process, limiting state procedural hurdles.
Summary
Background
This case involved a private citizen who challenged actions by Ohio’s Secretary of State about how the State handled a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The amendment at issue was the proposed Nineteenth Amendment, which would extend the right to vote to women. Ohio’s state constitution required that such a proposed amendment be submitted to the people by a referendum, and the Ohio Supreme Court held that this requirement did not violate Article V of the U.S. Constitution (the rule for amending the Constitution).
Reasoning
The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the same legal question it had decided in an earlier related case (No. 582). Relying on the reasoning in that earlier opinion, the Court concluded that the Ohio Supreme Court’s judgment could not stand. The national Court reversed the Ohio decision, finding that the State’s requirement to submit the proposed amendment to a popular referendum conflicted with Article V and therefore could not determine the federal amendment process.
Real world impact
The decision removes Ohio’s claimed power to use a voter referendum to bar or delay a proposed federal amendment, including the Nineteenth Amendment on women’s suffrage. In practical terms, the ruling limits state procedures that would interfere with the Constitution’s specified method for proposing and adopting amendments, and it clears the way for the federal amendment process to proceed without being controlled by state referendums.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?