Did any states object to the ratification process of the 16th Amendment and how many state ratifications were required?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Sixteenth Amendment required ratification by three‑quarters of the states — 36 of the 48 then in the Union — and that threshold was reached in early February 1913 when the 36th state ratified; Secretary of State Philander C. Knox proclaimed the amendment effective on February 25, 1913 (three‑quarters = 36 of 48) [1] [2] [3]. Some critics since the 1930s have claimed procedural irregularities in many state ratifications, but mainstream government and archival sources record 36 ratifying legislatures by February 1913 and later list a total of 42 ratifications from the then‑48 states [4] [1] [5].
1. What the Constitution required and what was achieved
Article V of the Constitution sets the rule that three‑quarters of the states must ratify an amendment; applied to the 48 states in 1913 that meant 36 legislatures were required. Congressional and archival accounts show the amendment was proposed in 1909 and that, after state action, the required number was attained in early February 1913 and certified by the Secretary of State later that month [1] [3] [2].
2. Who objected at the time — the political fight not a legal nullity
Contemporary opposition to the amendment was political and regional. Conservative Republicans and business‑aligned interests opposed an unapportioned federal income tax and expected the amendment to fail; progressive and Democratic victories in the 1910–1912 period shifted momentum and helped secure ratification [4] [6]. Those political opponents did not prevent the state legislative approvals that produced the three‑quarters threshold [4].
3. Post‑ratification legal challenges and the rise of “not‑ratified” theories
Beginning several decades after 1913, authors such as William J. Benson advanced claims that the Amendment was invalid because of alleged procedural defects, altered wording in some state journals, or other technicalities. These theories have been widely identified as tax‑protester arguments and have been rejected repeatedly in federal courts and by official repositories; mainstream sources continue to treat the Amendment as valid and list 36 ratifications by February 1913 and additional later ratifications bringing the total to 42 [5] [4] [1].
4. What proponents of the “invalid ratification” claim say
Researchers like Benson pointed to dozens of state‑level irregularities — such as spelling, punctuation, or timing relative to state rules — and argued those flaws meant many legislatures did not legally ratify the text Congress sent [7] [8]. Supporters of that narrative frame their case as exposing government neglect or fraud during the early 20th‑century ratification process [8] [7].
5. How government and courts have treated those claims
Official sources including the National Archives, the State Department’s proclamation, the Library of Congress and the IRS treat the amendment as duly ratified and note the number of ratifications and the certification dates; the IRS and legal histories cite court decisions that have rejected tax‑protester arguments attacking the Amendment’s validity [1] [3] [9] [10]. The historical record maintained by archives and the Constitution Annotated records ratification as completed under the three‑quarters rule [3] [10].
6. Where disagreement matters and where it does not
Disagreement persists among fringe researchers about the legal sufficiency of some state ratifications; those disputes have not produced a court ruling invalidating the Amendment nor changed how federal tax law operates. The practical effect is settled: Congress enacted an income tax in 1913 and the judiciary has upheld income‑tax statutes in the century since [11] [9] [12].
7. Bottom line for readers
The textual, archival, and government record shows the Sixteenth Amendment reached the Constitution’s three‑quarters threshold — 36 of 48 states — and was certified in February 1913; alternative accounts alleging widescale ratification fraud exist and have been promoted by authors like William J. Benson, but mainstream archival sources and court rulings continue to treat the Amendment as valid [2] [1] [7] [5].
Limitations and sources: This summary relies on archival and institutional sources (National Archives, Library of Congress, Congressional and State Department records) and on published critiques and secondary accounts cited above; it does not adjudicate complex state‑law procedural claims that fringe authors raise, only notes that those claims have not altered the official ratification record [1] [3] [7] [5].