## Facts

- Ohio amended its constitution in 1912 to vest legislative power in the General Assembly and the people, reserving a referendum power allowing voters to approve or disapprove laws enacted by the General Assembly.
- Under the amendment, if a sufficient petition was filed, the challenged statute would be submitted to a popular vote; if disapproved, it would have “no effect whatever.”
- In 1915, Ohio enacted a congressional redistricting statute creating 22 districts; it was approved by the governor and filed with the secretary of state.
- A referendum petition meeting the state threshold was filed, and Ohio voters disapproved the redistricting statute.
- David Davis sought a writ of mandamus to compel Ohio election officials to disregard the referendum result and conduct congressional elections under the rejected redistricting statute.
- The Ohio Supreme Court denied relief, holding the referendum valid and concluding the disapproved redistricting act was not law.
- Davis sought review, arguing that (i) the referendum violated the federal guarantee of a republican form of government, (ii) Article I, § 4 requires election regulations to be prescribed only by the representative “Legislature,” and (iii) federal apportionment law barred use of a referendum on congressional redistricting.

## Issues

1. Whether a challenge that Ohio’s referendum system violates the Guarantee Clause (Article IV, § 4) presents a justiciable question.
2. Whether Article I, § 4’s reference to regulations prescribed by the state “Legislature” excludes lawmaking by referendum, making Ohio’s referendum inapplicable to congressional redistricting.
3. Whether the federal Apportionment Act of 1911 precludes a state from subjecting a congressional redistricting statute to referendum approval or disapproval.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Ohio Supreme Court’s judgment denying mandamus.
- The Guarantee Clause claim was held nonjusticiable because it is committed to Congress, not the courts.
- For Article I, § 4 purposes, the Court accepted the Ohio Supreme Court’s construction that Ohio’s legislative power includes the referendum; therefore, a statute rejected by referendum is not law under state law and cannot govern elections.
- The federal Apportionment Act of 1911 did not prohibit Ohio from reserving to the people a referendum power over congressional redistricting statutes.

## Legal Principles

- Guarantee Clause claims alleging a state lacks a republican form of government generally present political questions committed to Congress and are not justiciable in federal courts.
- For Article I, § 4, “Legislature” refers to a state’s lawmaking function as defined by the state’s constitution and authoritative state-court interpretation, including referendum procedures when state law makes them part of the legislative process.
- Federal apportionment legislation does not, absent clear contrary direction, bar a state from conditioning effectiveness of a congressional redistricting act on approval under its own lawmaking procedures, including referendum.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Ohio could subject a congressional redistricting statute to referendum under its constitution, that a voter-rejected redistricting act had no legal effect, and that claims premised on the Guarantee Clause were not for judicial resolution.


Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U.S. 565 (1916)