American election expert Nicholas Stephanopoulos has drafted this new article forthcoming in the California Law Review, available to the public on Social Science Research Network. The research is Stephanopoulos’ answer to Pam Karlan’s Jorde Lecture, “The Latest Counter-majoritarian Difficulty,” whose theme is the array of powers that often stifle common majorities’ will. What results are some unique insights into the democratic reform tools available within the American system. Here’s the abstract:

In her Jorde Lecture, Pam Karlan paints a grim picture of American democracy under siege. Together, the malapportioned Senate, the obsolete Electoral College, rampant voter suppression and gerrymandering, and a Supreme Court happy to greenlight these practices, threaten the very notion of majority rule. I share Karlan’s bleak assessment. I’m also skeptical that conventional tools—judicial decisions and congressional statutes—will solve our current problems.

So in this response, I explore a pair of less familiar but possibly more potent alternatives: the authority of each chamber of Congress to judge its members’ elections, and presidential enforcement of the Guarantee Clause. These powers are explicitly delineated by the Constitution. They can’t be stymied by either the Senate’s filibuster or the Court’s hostility. And they hold enormous democratic potential, especially if channeled through the procedures I outline.

Visit the full research and do your own investigation here. Also, do not miss the most recent articles by DC authors. You can listen to the recent podcasts from Democracy Works of the McCourtney Institute for Democracy on “Understanding – And Addressing – Domestic Terrorism” and “Citizenship In A Consumer World” published by Jenna Spinelle.