State of Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant
United States Supreme Court
241 U.S. 565, 36 S. Ct. 708, 60 L. Ed. 1172 (1916)

- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
The state of Ohio amended its constitution in 1912, declaring legislative power to be vested not only in the general assembly, but also in allowing popular referendum to approve or disapprove any law that the general assembly enacted. Within a time after enactment of a law, on petition of 6 percent of Ohio voters, that law would then be placed on the ballot. If approved by a majority vote, the law would be enacted, and if no majority vote were received, the law would be void and have no effect. In May 1915, Ohio began reapportioning Congressional districts in the state legislature, with the legislature approving new maps for apportionment. However, after a duly completed petition, the general assembly’s legislative apportionment was voted against in a popular election. The main concern became whether that popular ballot must stand. The Constitution had mandated that the selection of senators and representatives would be prescribed by the legislature. A Congressional act in 1911 removed prior language that required that the states handle apportionment by the state legislature, instead requiring only that the choice be made in the manner provided by appropriate law. At the trial court level, the popular ballot was found to be legitimate—that the state had acted within its power, that nothing in the acts of Congress or the federal Constitution prohibited such action, and that the legislature’s apportionment was thus void. The state appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (White, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.