can statewide initiative/referendum force state Legs to rectify constitutional amendments?

[David Hume]

Say Dems want to add Roe as a constitutional amendment. State legs like OH will not rectify it for sure. But citizen could try to have a referendum force state legs to rectify it. Will this be accepted by the Federal constitution?

I think the answer is yes, as per Arizona_State_Legislature_v._Arizona_Independent_Redistricting_Commission.

If so, the state legs that won't rectify are only:
TX LA KS IA IN KY WV NC TN SC GA AL

MS and FL have referendum but I doubt they will pass it. This seems worth trying. As a pro-choice R leaner, I genuinely hope Roe could be added as amendment so we can settle and move on from this issue.
 

[Skill and Chance]

Based on this, it looks like no.  However, I am not a lawyer.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/253us221

This case specifically deals with ratification by the legislature, however.  If ratification is by state conventions instead, perhaps it might still be possible for the state to pass a law specifying that all of the registered voters in the state will be considered "delegates" to the "convention" and hold a ratification referendum that way? 

However, even this possibility presumes the legislature (or some past legislature that enacted the law providing for a "convention" of all registered voters) wants a referendum.  If you are trying to override the legislature by referendum, you would still be out of luck.

[brucejoel99]

No, the AZ State Legislature Court conformed with Davis v. Hildebrant & Smiley v. Holm (&, in so doing, led to Moore v. Harper) in pertaining to the state's lawmaking functions (concerning, e.g., redistricting initiatives, the Gov.'s veto, electoral time-place-manner regulation), while Hawke distinguished federal ratification as not being effectuated by state legislation.

[Skill and Chance]

Should be worth noting that allowing federal constitutional amendments by referendum seems like a very bad idea for minority rights.   For example, there would likely have been explicit Jim Crow language added to our constitution sometime circa 1920 and explicitly anti-gay rights language added sometime circa 2000.  Our more absolutist interpretation of free speech almost certainly wouldn't survive amendments by referendum either. 

[politicallefty]

This was my post less than a year and a half ago before Moore v. Harper was announced:

If you read Chief Justice Roberts's majority opinion in 2019's Rucho v. Common Cause (joined in full by the four other conservatives, all of whom are still on the Court), he specifically mentions the ways in which state legislatures have been restrained or outright bypassed by state constitutions and statutes and the states courts interpreting those accordingly:

The States, for example, are actively addressing the issue on a number of fronts. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Florida struck down that State’s congressional districting plan as a violation of the Fair Districts Amendment to the Florida Constitution. League of Women Voters of Florida v. Detzner, 172 So. 3d 363 (2015). The dissent wonders why we can’t do the same. See post, at 31. The answer is that there is no “Fair Districts Amendment” to the Federal Constitution. Provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply. (We do not understand how the dissent can maintain that a provision saying that no districting plan “shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party” provides little guidance on the question. See post, at 31, n. 6.) Indeed, numerous other States are restricting partisan considerations in districting through legislation. One way they are doing so is by placing power to draw electoral districts in the hands of independent commissions. For example, in November 2018, voters in Colorado and Michigan approved constitutional amendments creating multimember commissions that will be responsible in whole or in part for creating and approving district maps for congressional and state legislative districts. See Colo. Const., Art. V, §§44, 46; Mich. Const., Art. IV, §6. Missouri is trying a different tack. Voters there overwhelmingly approved the creation of a new position—state demographer—to draw state legislative district lines. Mo. Const., Art. III, §3.

This is from the opinion of the Court just three and a half years ago. None of the other Justices in the majority took issue with it at the time and it's not like Justices such as Thomas or Gorsuch have any issue with writing a concurrence when they feel it necessary. There's precedent on top of precedent on top of precedent that should leave absolutely no runway for this theory to get off the ground.

The only exception for a state legislature to act contrary to its own constitution is Article V. I think the difference was noted by Solicitor General Prelogar when she was responding to Justices Kagan and Jackson. Justice Jackson was really focusing in on the fact that the law-making authority of a legislature is derived from its state constitution and that authority is subject to all of the checks and balances that may exist. When it comes to ratification (unlike the Elections Clause), that is not a law-making function, but rather a specific federal function (as the Court recognized a century ago).

I think this was in response to the oral arguments in Moore, but the paragraph I emphasized above still applies. I wrote that before the Court's decision, but that was pretty much the Court's opinion in that case. Obviously, I think Roberts nailed it in Moore.

The only thing I can't figure out is how Roberts went from his dissent in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission to his majority opinion in Moore v. Harper. While he did use the Arizona case to support his opinion in Rucho, it was a straight-up majority opinion with no concurrences from anyone in that majority. I just find that strange because in the Arizona case, the dissent was effectively agreeing with a less-evolved form of the ISL. Did Roberts get cold feet between that case and Rucho? Perhaps. But then again, why didn't any of the far-right Justices clarify that they weren't willing to follow Roberts all the way (to the Moore decision)?

[David Hume]

No, the AZ State Legislature Court conformed with Davis v. Hildebrant & Smiley v. Holm (&, in so doing, led to Moore v. Harper) in pertaining to the state's lawmaking functions (concerning, e.g., redistricting initiatives, the Gov.'s veto, electoral time-place-manner regulation), while Hawke distinguished federal ratification as not being effectuated by state legislation.

State with referendum can change their constitution to mandate the state legislature to ratify a federal amendment. This to me is more of a state right issue, i.e. what the state constitution/statue that is passed by referendum can force the state legislature to do.

[Skill and Chance]

No, the AZ State Legislature Court conformed with Davis v. Hildebrant & Smiley v. Holm (&, in so doing, led to Moore v. Harper) in pertaining to the state's lawmaking functions (concerning, e.g., redistricting initiatives, the Gov.'s veto, electoral time-place-manner regulation), while Hawke distinguished federal ratification as not being effectuated by state legislation.

State with referendum can change their constitution to mandate the state legislature to ratify a federal amendment. This to me is more of a state right issue, i.e. what the state constitution/statue that is passed by referendum can force the state legislature to do.

I don't think they can?  A hostile legislature work ignore it and say in court that it violates those early 20th century SCOTUS precedents. 

More interesting would be an initiative declaring that all the registered voters of the state are to be considered delegates to any future state ratification convention (i.e. that it would be a statewide referendum).  That might hold up?