[Paleo Conservative]

No, in a 1920 Supreme Court decision, the Court ruled that a referendum could not be used to ratify a constitutional amendment. Article V’s specific language about legislatures or state ratifying conventions was sacred.

So if "Article V's Article V’s specific language about legislatures or state ratifying conventions" is "sacred", why shouldn't the language in Article II also be sacred?

Article 2.

Section 1

.............................

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

.............................

[Publius]

Check out posts 39 thru 41 for as delightful colloquoy between Congressman Billyob and myself on this very topic.

[Congressman Billybob]

I’m aware of the decision that a plebiscite cannot substitute for a legislative action in ratifying a proposed amendment. That was the special circumstance I said did not apply to ordinary legislation, such as election law.

John / Billybob