Hawke v. Smith (No. 1)
Headline: Ohio cannot force a public referendum to approve ratification of a federal constitutional amendment; the Court struck down the state rule, stopping states from replacing legislatures or conventions with popular votes.
Holding: The Court held that Ohio’s constitutional provision allowing a referendum on the State’s ratification of a federal amendment conflicts with the Constitution, which requires ratification by state legislatures or conventions.
- Blocks states from subjecting federal amendment ratifications to popular referendums.
- Allows state legislatures’ ratification votes to take effect without a public vote.
- Stops officials from preparing referendum ballots for federal amendment ratification.
Summary
Background
A private citizen sued to stop Ohio’s Secretary of State from spending money to print ballots for a referendum on the State Legislature’s ratification of the proposed Eighteenth Amendment. Ohio voters had added a 1918 rule letting the public approve or reject the legislature’s ratification of any proposed federal constitutional amendment. Lower state courts upheld the State’s rule and dismissed the citizen’s challenge, and the case reached the United States Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The Court examined the Constitution’s rules for changing the Constitution, which say amendments become valid only when ratified by state legislatures or by conventions as Congress chooses. The Justices explained that the word "legislature" referred to the representative lawmaking body, not to a direct popular vote. Ratification is an exercise of the federal amendment process, not ordinary state lawmaking, so a State cannot convert that federal ratification step into a statewide referendum.
Real world impact
The ruling prevents Ohio (and similarly situated States) from requiring a popular referendum to approve a State’s ratification of a federal amendment. It means state legislatures’ ratification votes stand for federal purposes without being subject to an extra popular vote. The Supreme Court reversed the Ohio court’s decision and sent the case back for further action consistent with this ruling.
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?