Skip to content


Hawke Vs. Smith - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number253 U.S. 231
AppellantHawke
RespondentSmith
Excerpt:
.....amendment by the legislature of ohio cannot be referred to the electors of the state; the ohio constitution, in requiring such a referendum, is inconsistent with the constitution of the united states. hawke v. smith, no. 1, ante, 253 u. s. 221 . 100 ohio st. 540 reversed. the case is stated in the opinion. page 253 u. s. 232 mr. justice day delivered the opinion of the court. this case presents the same question as that already decided in no. 582, ante, 253 u. s. 221 , the only difference being that the amendment involved is the proposed nineteenth amendment to the constitution extending the right of suffrage to women. the supreme court of ohio, upon the authority of its decision in hawke v. smith, (no. 582), ante, 253 u......
Judgment:
Hawke v. Smith - 253 U.S. 231 (1920)
U.S. Supreme Court Hawke v. Smith , 253 U.S. 231 (1920)

Hawke v. Smith (No. 2)

No. 601

Argued April 23, 1920

Decided June 1, 1920

253 U.S. 231

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF OHIO

Syllabus

The ratification of the proposed Nineteenth Amendment by the Legislature of Ohio cannot be referred to the electors of the state; the Ohio Constitution, in requiring such a referendum, is inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States. Hawke v. Smith, No. 1, ante, 253 U. S. 221 . 100 Ohio St. 540 reversed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

Page 253 U. S. 232

MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the same question as that already decided in No. 582, ante, 253 U. S. 221 , the only difference being that the amendment involved is the proposed Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution extending the right of suffrage to women. The Supreme Court of Ohio, upon the authority of its decision in Hawke v. Smith, (No. 582), ante, 253 U. S. 221 , held that the Constitution of the state requiring such submission by a referendum to the people, did not violate Article V of the federal Constitution, and for that reason rendered a like judgment as in No. 582.

For the reasons stated in our opinion in No. 582, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio must be

Reversed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //