Here’s the first of a periodic column I will be doing for SCOTUSblog. It comes with this introductory description:

The biggest questions in constitutional law concern the power of the Supreme Court to decide questions differently from what elected officials want. Sometimes the Supreme Court insists upon having the last word in the name of enforcing constitutional commands concerning the requirements of justice or even democracy itself. But the current court is hesitant to interfere to protect democracy, and the events taking place right now in Texas raise the pressing question of whether there is another way for the court to protect democracy without insisting upon having the last word.

ELB readers may be interested that, as stated in this first piece, a general theme of the column will be the Court’s abandonment of the democracy-enhancing theory of judicial review most famously articulated by John Hart Ely and what if anything can be done to preserve or revitalize that role for the Court under current conditions. Specifically, in light of the current race to the bottom with respect to mid-decade redistricting, this piece expands upon the point made in a previous ELB post that consideration should be given to the idea of a “dormant” Elections Clause analogous to the “dormant” Commerce Clause, so that the Supreme Court has the option of a less interventionist democracy-enhancing role than what Ely articulated.