| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

The U.S. Supreme Court case State of Ohio on Relation of Davis v. Hildebrant, Secretary of State of Ohio in 1915 revolved around the constitutionality and legality of a referendum provision within the state's constitution that allowed voters to approve or reject laws passed by their legislature. The specific law under scrutiny was one concerning redistricting for congressional elections which had been rejected by voters through this referendum process. The plaintiffs argued that this violated Article I, Section 4 of the U.S Constitution which states that each state's legislature should determine "the times, places and manner" for holding elections for Senators and Representatives unless Congress makes its own regulations. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them stating that when it comes to determining what constitutes a 'legislature' within a state (as referred to in Article I), it is up to each individual state itself as long as they are not violating any other part of the Constitution. Therefore, if Ohio decided its legislative power included referendums from citizens then it was constitutional even if those referendums could overturn decisions made by elected officials.
In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Ohio on Relation of Davis v. Hildebrant, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the power to redistrict was a legislative one and thus could be subject to referendum under Ohio's constitution. He disagreed with the majority’s view that federal law preempted state law in this matter, asserting instead that states had broad powers to structure their own governments unless explicitly limited by the U.S Constitution. Holmes believed there was no constitutional provision or principle preventing a state from allowing its citizens to approve or disapprove legislation through referenda, including laws concerning congressional districts. Therefore, he concluded that Ohio's use of a popular referendum did not violate Article I Section 4 - often referred as "Elections Clause" - which gives states authority over “the Times, Places and Manner” of holding elections for Senators and Representatives.