Ohio Ex Rel. Davis v. Hildebrant

Background

Ohio’s legislature passed a law in May 1915 that created a new plan for electing members of Congress with twenty-two districts. Voters used a state constitutional referendum process to challenge the law, and a majority voted to disapprove it. Supporters of the redistricting law sued state election officials in Ohio’s courts asking a mandamus order to ignore the referendum and use the new map anyway for upcoming congressional elections.

Reasoning

The Court considered three angles. First, it accepted the state court’s conclusion that Ohio’s referendum process is part of the State’s legislative authority under its constitution. Second, it reviewed the federal law passed in 1911 about apportionment and found Congress had changed the wording to allow a State’s own laws and procedures — including referendums — to count for making redistricting decisions. Third, the Court rejected the claim that including referendums would violate the Constitution’s requirements for a republican form of government, explaining that such political questions are for Congress to address rather than the courts. Taken together, these points led the Court to affirm the lower court’s judgment.

Real world impact

The decision means the people’s vote disapproving Ohio’s redistricting law stands and the disapproved map has no legal effect. Election officials must not implement a map that voters have rejected under the State’s referendum process. The ruling also makes clear that when Congress says states should act "in the manner provided by the laws thereof," those state procedures can include popular referendums for congressional districting.