Hawke v. Smith

Supreme Court of the United States · 1920 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsConstitutional AmendmentsArticle VArticle Vratificationstate legislaturereferendumfederal function

Facts

Congress proposed the Eighteenth Amendment and provided that it would become effective only if ratified by the legislatures of the several States within seven years. The Ohio General Assembly adopted a resolution ratifying the amendment, and the Governor forwarded certified copies as directed; the United States Secretary of State later proclaimed ratification, including Ohio among the ratifying States. Meanwhile, Ohio had adopted a constitutional provision reserving to the people the referendum power over any action of the General Assembly ratifying a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff sought to prevent state officials from spending public funds to submit Ohio's ratification to such a referendum.

Issue

Whether Ohio may, through its state constitution, require that the General Assembly's ratification of a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution be submitted to a popular referendum. More specifically, the question was whether Ohio's referendum provision conflicts with Article V of the Federal Constitution when Congress has chosen ratification by state legislatures.

Rule

Under Article V, the choice of method of ratification is a national power granted to Congress, and ratification may occur only by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as Congress directs. Ratification by a state of a proposed federal constitutional amendment is not an act of state legislation but an expression of the State's assent under authority derived from the Federal Constitution, and therefore a State may not add a referendum requirement to legislative ratification.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress proposes a new federal constitutional amendment and specifies that it will become effective only if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. In Michigan, the state constitution provides that any legislative ratification of a federal amendment must be approved by statewide referendum before it is effective, and state officials schedule the vote in Detroit and across the state.

If the validity of Michigan's referendum requirement is challenged, how should a court rule?

Explanation. Article V gives Congress the national power to choose between only two modes of ratification: by state legislatures or by state conventions. When Congress chooses legislatures, the representative legislative body must act directly. A state cannot add a referendum because ratification is not an act of ordinary state legislation, but an expression of the state's assent under authority derived from the Federal Constitution.