Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 20

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

15 

Opinion of the Court 

IV 

We  are  asked  to  decide  whether  the  Elections  Clause 
carves out an exception to this basic principle.  We hold that 
it  does  not.    The  Elections  Clause  does  not  insulate  state 
legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial re-
view. 

A 
We first considered the interplay between state constitu-
tional  provisions  and  a  state  legislature’s  exercise  of  au-
thority under the Elections Clause in Ohio ex rel. Davis v. 
Hildebrant, 241 U. S. 565 (1916).  There, we examined the 
application  to  the  Elections  Clause  of  a  provision  of  the
Ohio Constitution permitting the State’s voters “to approve 
or disapprove by popular vote any law enacted by the Gen-
eral Assembly.”  Id., at 566.  In 1915, the Ohio General As-
sembly drew new congressional districts, which the State’s
voters  then  rejected  through  such  a  popular  referendum. 
Asked  to  disregard  the  referendum,  the  Ohio  Supreme 
Court refused, explaining that the Elections Clause—while 
“conferring  the  power  therein  defined  upon  the  various
state legislatures”—did not preclude subjecting legislative
Acts under the Clause to “a popular vote.”  State ex rel. Da-
vis  v.  Hildebrant,  94  Ohio  St.  154,  163,  114  N. E.  55,  58 
(1916).

We unanimously affirmed, rejecting as “plainly without 
substance” the contention that “to include the referendum 
within state legislative power for the purpose of apportion-
ment is repugnant to §4 of Article I [the Elections Clause].” 
Hildebrant, 241 U. S., at 569; see also Hawke v. Smith, 253 
U. S. 221, 230–231 (1920) (describing Hildebrant as holding 
that  “the  referendum  provision  of  the  state  constitution 
when applied to a law redistricting the State with a view to 
representation in Congress was not unconstitutional”). 

Smiley v. Holm, decided 16 years after Hildebrant, con-
sidered the effect of a Governor’s veto of a state redistricting