Bryna Godar, Miriam Seifter Discuss Court Reform and State Constitutions

State legislatures increasingly enact laws designed to influence the substantive outcomes of state court decisions, including court-packing efforts, jurisdiction-stripping laws and changes to judicial selection or authority. While such measures would be seismic at the federal level, they often draw little attention at the state-level. Bryna Godar and Miriam Seifter argue in “Court Reform and State Constitutions” that although state constitutions permit reforms aligning courts with popular preferences, they require meaningful public engagement and validation — requirements too often bypassed, undermining core principles of popular sovereignty. The paper is forthcoming in the Northwestern University Law Review.