Hawke v. Smith (No. 1) (1900)
- Docket
- 582
- Decided
- 1900-1940-
Summary
Question: Did Ohio's 1918 amendment providing that amendments to the United States Constitution should be subject to a referendum conflict with Article Five of the United States Constitution? Conclusion: Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court reversed the Supreme Court of Ohio and ruled that Ohio's referendum provision conflicted with Article Five. In an opinion written by Justice William R. Day, the Court held that Article Five's ratification requirement was "limited to two methods, by action of the legislatures of three-fourths of the States, or conventions in a like number of States." The term "legislatures" in Article Five referred to a "representative body which made the laws of the people," which is precisely what the Ohio General Assembly was set to be in the Ohio Constitution. Though the Ohio Constitution did grant some legislative power to the people through referendums, the "ratification by a State of a constitution amendment is not an act of legislation within the proper sense," but instead an "expression of the assent of the State to a proposed amendment." Article Five specified that this assent could only be provided by a legislature or a convention, not a referendum. Therefore, Ohio's referendum requirement was unconstitutional.