In the case of Jones v. Hildebrant, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state constitutional provision that allowed for popular veto of legislative reapportionment plans violated the Equal Protection Clause or Article I of the Constitution. The court ruled in favor of Hildebrant and upheld Ohio's use of referendums to approve or reject redistricting maps drawn by its legislature, stating it did not violate either clause. This decision affirmed that states have broad power over their own legislative processes as long as they do not infringe upon individual rights protected under federal law.

I'm sorry, but there seems to be a mistake in the information provided. The U.S Supreme Court case Jones v. Hildebrant was decided in 1916, not 1976. Furthermore, this case did not have a dissenting opinion as it was unanimously decided by the court that Ohio's use of popular referenda to overturn state legislation redistricting congressional districts did not violate Article I of the Constitution. Therefore, no summary for a dissenting opinion can be provided because one does not exist for this particular case.