Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 56

Cite as:  576 U. S. ____ (2015) 

17 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

upheld the law and emphasized that the plain text of the 
Presidential Electors Clause vests the power to determine 
the  manner  of  appointment  in  “the  Legislature”  of  the 
State.  That  power,  the  Court  explained,  “can  neither  be 
taken  away  nor  abdicated.”  146  U. S.,  at  35  (emphasis
added; internal quotation marks omitted).

Against  that  backdrop,  the  Court  decided  two  cases
regarding  the  meaning  of  “the  Legislature”  in  the  Elec-
tions  Clause.    In  Ohio  ex  rel.  Davis  v.  Hildebrant,  241 
U. S.  565  (1916),  the  Ohio  Legislature  passed  a  congres-
sional  redistricting  law.    Under  the  Ohio  Constitution, 
voters  held  a  referendum  on  the  law  and  rejected  it.    A 
supporter of the law sued on behalf of the State, contend-
ing that the referendum “was not and could not be a part 
of the legislative authority of the State and therefore could 
have  no  influence  on  . . .  the  law  creating  congressional
districts” under the Elections Clause.  Id., at 567. 

This  Court  rejected  the  challenger’s  constitutional  ar-
gument  as  a  nonjusticiable  claim  that  the  referendum
“causes a State . . . to be not republican” in violation of the 
Guarantee  Clause  of  the  Constitution.    Id.,  at  569  (citing 
Art.  IV,  §4).  The  Court  also  rejected  an  argument  that
Ohio’s  use  of  the  referendum  violated  a  federal  statute, 
and held that Congress had the power to pass that statute
under  the  Elections  Clause.    Id.,  at  568–569.  Hildebrant 
in  no  way  suggested  that  the  state  legislature  could  be 
displaced  from  the  redistricting  process,  and  Hildebrant 
certainly  did  not  hold—as  the  majority  today  contends—
that  “the  word  [‘Legislature’  in  the  Elections  Clause] 
encompassed a veto power lodged in the people.”  Ante, at 
16.  Hildebrant  simply  approved  a  State’s  decision  to 
employ  a  referendum  in  addition  to  redistricting  by  the 
Legislature.  See 241 U. S., at 569.  The result of the deci-
sion was to send the Ohio Legislature back to the drawing 
board to do the redistricting.

In  Smiley,  the  Minnesota  Legislature  passed  a  law