The Core of the Case for Supermajority Rules in Constitutional Courts

This paper develops a baseline argument or 'core case' for the use of supermajority rules in constitutional courts to declare legislation unconstitutional. My core case only applies to jurisdictions with 'strong' systems of constitutional adjudication, and only to constitutional courts that allow public dissent and that actually take a vote. My core case is grounded on four arguments: first, supermajority rules increase constitutional courts' collective accuracy according to the Condorcet Jury Theorem; second, supermajority rules promote deliberation among judges; third, supermajority rules increase constitutional courts' public reputation; and fourth, supermajority rules protect the constitutionality of statutes. The rest of the paper addresses some possible objections and comments against my core case.