## Facts

- Congress proposed the Eighteenth Amendment and specified ratification by state legislatures within seven years.
- The Ohio General Assembly ratified the amendment, and the Governor transmitted Ohio’s ratification to federal authorities.
- Ohio’s constitution was amended to allow a statewide referendum on the General Assembly’s ratification of proposed federal constitutional amendments.
- Ohio voters submitted sufficient petitions to trigger a referendum, and the Secretary of State began preparing ballots for that vote.
- George S. Hawke, an Ohio citizen and taxpayer, sued to enjoin the Secretary of State from expending public funds on the referendum, arguing that conditioning ratification on a popular vote conflicted with U.S. Const. art. V.
- Ohio courts sustained a demurrer and upheld the referendum procedure as applied to ratification.
- The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the state judgment on writ of error.

## Issues

1. Whether a state may subject its legislature’s ratification of a proposed federal constitutional amendment to a popular referendum consistent with Article V.
2. Whether ratification by a state “Legislature” under Article V permits additional state-law conditions that effectively alter the federally prescribed ratification method.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Supreme Court of Ohio in a unanimous opinion by Justice Day.
- Article V provides only two valid methods of ratification: by state legislatures or by state conventions, as chosen by Congress.
- “Legislatures” in Article V means the representative lawmaking bodies of the states, not the people acting directly.
- A state legislature’s ratification of a proposed federal amendment is a federal function derived from the U.S. Constitution, not from state law.
- Ratification is not ordinary legislation; therefore, state referendum provisions governing legislation do not apply to ratification.
- Ohio’s requirement that ratification be submitted to the electorate was inconsistent with Article V and could not be used to invalidate or condition the legislature’s ratification.

## Legal Principles

- Article V establishes exclusive procedures for ratification; states may not add steps that function as a third method of ratification.
- When Congress specifies ratification by “Legislatures,” the relevant actor is the state’s representative legislative body, not the electorate via referendum.
- State legislative ratification of a federal constitutional amendment is a federal constitutional function insulated from modification by state constitutional or statutory process rules.
- Because ratification is an assent to a federal proposal rather than lawmaking, state mechanisms designed for legislative enactments (including referenda) do not control the Article V process.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Ohio could not require a popular referendum on the General Assembly’s ratification of a proposed federal constitutional amendment because Article V’s ratification methods are exclusive and the legislature’s ratification role is a federal function not subject to state-imposed conditions.


Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920)