In this Response Note to Jeremy Waldron's The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review, the Authors defend judicial majoritarianism, which is the use of majority decisionmaking among judicial officers who possess the power of judicial review. In defending judicial majoritrianism, the Authors contend that Professor Waldron's arguments against majoritarian decisionmaking merely reassert traditional arguments against judicial review rather than adding any new ideas to the debate.

In this Essay, Douglas tells us that "[t]he most surprising action from the Supreme Court’s latest term may be what it did not do:  strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act . . . as unconstitutional." Douglas explores the Court's recent decision in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder (NAMUDNO), in which the Justices managed to avoid invalidating Congress's reauthorization of the "preclearance" provision of the Voting Rights Act (which requires preapproval for changes to voting procedures in covered jurisdictions). This Essay explores the reasons behind the Court's 8–1 opinion, which resolved the issue on narrow statutory grounds, and what the comments in dicta by various Justices may mean for future election law cases.