¶1ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP OHIO.
¶2The 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, 221.
¶3100 Ohio St. 540, reversed.
¶4The case is stated in the opinion.
¶5Mr. J. Frank Hanly, with whom Mr. George S. Hawke, ■Mr. Arthur Hellen, Mr. Charles B. Smith, Mr. James Bingham and Mr. Remster A. Bingham were on the brief, for plaintiff in error.
¶6*232Mr. Lawrence Maxwell, with whom Mr. John G. Price, Attorney General of the State of Ohio, Mr. Judson Harmon and Mr. B. W. Gearheart were on the brief, for defendant in error.
¶7Mr. Wayne B. Wheeler and Mr. James A. White, by leave of court, filed a brief as amid curioe.
¶8Mr. George Wharton Pepper, Mr. Shippen Lewis and Mr. William Draper Lewis, by leave of court, filed a brief as amid curios.
¶10delivered the opinion of the court.
¶11This case presents the same question as that already decided in No. 582, ante, 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, 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.
¶12For the reasons stated in our opinion in No. 582 the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio must be
¶13Reversed.