Hawke v. Smith (No. 1)
1920 U.S. LEXIS 1416, 253 U.S. 221, 40 S. Ct. 495 (1920)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The process for ratifying a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a federal function derived exclusively from Article V, which grants the power of ratification to a state's legislature or a convention, and a state cannot alter this process by subjecting its legislature's ratification to a popular referendum.
Facts:
- In 1917, the U.S. Congress proposed the Eighteenth Amendment to the states.
- The congressional resolution stipulated that the amendment would become operative when ratified by the 'legislatures' of three-fourths of the states.
- In November 1918, Ohio amended its state constitution to reserve the power of referendum for the people on any action by its general assembly ratifying a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
- On January 7, 1919, the General Assembly of Ohio, the state's legislature, adopted a resolution ratifying the Eighteenth Amendment.
- A citizen, Hawke, sought to compel the Ohio Secretary of State, Smith, to prepare for a statewide referendum on the General Assembly's ratification, pursuant to the new provision in the Ohio Constitution.
Procedural Posture:
- Hawke filed a petition for an injunction against Smith in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio, a state trial court.
- The Court of Common Pleas sustained a demurrer to the petition, dismissing Hawke's case.
- Hawke appealed to the Court of Appeals of Franklin County, an intermediate appellate court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Hawke then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, the state's highest court, which affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
- Hawke subsequently brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a provision in a state constitution that subjects the ratification of a federal constitutional amendment by the state's general assembly to a popular referendum conflict with Article V of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Day
Yes. The Ohio constitutional provision requiring a referendum on the ratification of a federal amendment is in conflict with Article V of the U.S. Constitution. The power to ratify a proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution derives its source from the Federal Constitution, not from the people of the states. Article V grants Congress the authority to choose one of two modes of ratification: by state legislatures or by state conventions. This is the exercise of a national power, and the term 'legislatures' refers to the representative bodies of the states, not the legislative power of the people exercised through a direct vote. The act of ratification is not ordinary legislation but is the expression of a state's assent to a proposed amendment, a function distinct from the state's law-making powers. Therefore, a state cannot alter or add to the method of ratification prescribed by Congress under Article V.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that the amendment process under Article V is an exclusive federal function, insulated from state-level procedural innovations like the referendum. It establishes that the term 'legislature,' as used in Article V, carries a specific, historical meaning referring to a representative body, not the broader concept of a state's legislative power which might include direct democracy. This ruling prevents potential inconsistencies and confusion among the states in the amendment process and reinforces the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution's prescribed methods for its own alteration.
