Scholarship

State legislatures regularly propose and enact laws that seek to shape the substantive outcomes of state courts. These measures, including court-packing efforts, jurisdiction-stripping laws, and more creative maneuvers to change judicial selection or authority, would amount to legal earthquakes at the federal level. At the state level, these efforts often receive virtually no attention. This Essay brings the potent category of outcome-shaping court reform measures into focus and evaluates it as a question of state constitutional law.

Election administrators in the U.S. face persistent financial strain with local governments and their tax bases shouldering most costs while state and federal support remains limited. At the same time, states collect billions each year in unclaimed funds, which are assets like abandoned bank accounts and forgotten insurance proceeds. States are increasingly using unclaimed funds to support public programs like education and housing, but none have earmarked them for election administration.

Amid federal upheaval, myriad important legal and policy developments continue to unfold at the state level. The Essays in this Special Issue were presented at, or grew out of, the fifth annual Public Law in the States Conference hosted by the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School in May 2025.

Developed by two of the subject’s leading experts, the First Edition of State Constitutional Law: Cases and Principles provides a contemporary, authoritative treatment of the field, complete with majority approaches and alternatives across the country. The book provides detailed treatments of the wide range of state constitutional issues—not only rights, but also government structure, democracy, fiscal provisions, and intrastate relations.

Does the Ohio Constitution allow the General Assembly to override the will of the people? The Essay situates Ohio within the broader national landscape, surveys how other states address legislative overrides of citizen-initiated statutes, and develops an interpretive framework grounded in the Ohio Constitution.

Unlike the U.S. Constitution, which has no explicit voting rights guarantee, state constitutions both affirmatively grant the right to vote and list explicit, enumerated exceptions from that right. But state actors routinely overstep those bounds—a practice this article refers to as “disenfranchisement creep.” This article identifies two primary ways in which state actors disenfranchise people beyond the scope of state constitutions.

This Article unpacks the state court supervisory power by mapping its sources, applications, and limits. The supervisory power has a basis in all fifty state constitutions and enables supreme courts to oversee their judiciary’s workload and operations. But as this Article shows, high courts are using this power beyond the humdrum of judicial administration to enhance substantive rights and remedies, facilitate their law development and agenda-setting capabilities, and mediate interbranch frictions. This Article’s core claim is that these more expansive applications of the supervisory power are generally defensible based on the evolution of state judiciaries and supreme courts’ unique roles in state governments.

Recent scholarship persuasively argues that state constitutional law should be grounded in state-centered reasoning, not federal imitation. That approach, compelling at the 10,000-foot level, also requires development through examples closer to the ground. This symposium Article uses legislative vetoes—arrangements in which legislators can override executive action without passing new laws—to explore the practice and adjudication of state structural constitutionalism.

National-level developments in law and government typically grab the biggest headlines and drive discourse in the legal academy. With a high-stakes presidential election, major U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and more, 2024 has been no exception. But many consequential legal developments have unfolded at the state level as well. The Essays in this Special Issue explore questions pertaining to state public law, including examining distinctive features of state governance and the relationship between states and the federal government.

This Essay identifies several considerations for state courts to weigh as they decide whether to grant pre-election remedies. These considerations—Purcell principles for state courts—aim to get at each case’s underlying equities and help courts discern whether, on balance, intervention ahead of an election is warranted. The Essay concludes by discussing how the federal Purcell principle impacts U.S. Supreme Court review of state court remedial rulings, such as when litigants ask the Court for emergency relief on the ground that a state court violated the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause.