Kimble v. Swackhamer

Background

A group of applicants asked Nevada courts to stop the Secretary of State from placing an advisory question about ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment on the November ballot. In 1977 the Nevada Legislature had passed a statute requiring that advisory question and stating that the vote would not place any legal requirement on the legislature. The trial court denied the applicants’ request for an injunction, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the denial by a vote of four to one. Applicants argued the advisory vote and any deferral of legislative action violated Article V’s rules for ratifying amendments.

Reasoning

Justice Rehnquist, acting as a single Circuit Justice, explained that one Justice cannot summarily reverse a state high court and may only grant temporary relief to preserve the full Court’s ability to review a case. He found it unlikely that four Justices would note probable jurisdiction, so emergency relief was unnecessary. He concluded the statute does not prevent the legislature from acting before the advisory vote, and that the referendum is nonbinding. Rehnquist distinguished earlier cases that forbade binding popular ratification, saying those decisions do not bar nonbinding communication between legislators and constituents.

Real world impact

Because the emergency request was denied, Nevada may go forward with its nonbinding advisory ERA question and the ballots need not be impounded. The state legislature remains free to vote for or against ratification regardless of the advisory result. This ruling was an interim denial of emergency relief, not a final decision on the constitutional claim, so the dispute could still reach the full Court on the merits if further review is sought.