Justice Barrett writing style takes center stage in a recent Supreme Court opinion on election law, offering a lesson in how lively verbs and clear subjects can transform dense legal prose.
Faced with two election-related opinions to read, many might assume the grand constitutional question would be the better pick. But as this analysis explains, the more technical case can prove far more readable when the author chooses energetic verbs over abstract nouns.
Justice Barrett writing style in election law
In Watson v. Republican National Committee, Justice Amy Coney Barrett opens with a brisk tour through American election practices, from early statutes to Civil War absentee voting. Her sentences often place a clear actor up front and hand that actor a strong verb. In quick succession, Congress “may override” state choices, state legislatures “may direct” how electors are chosen, and Congress “allowed,” “enacted,” and later “intervened” in the timeline for choosing electors.
Early on, states “imposed” an Election Day receipt rule for mail ballots, then states “began counting” ballots that arrived later. Even when the subject is not a human actor, Barrett charges the prose with motion. The Elections Clause “empowers” state legislatures. Responsibility “belongs” to the states. The Constitution “lodges” power in legislatures.
Fraud “ran rampant,” then “continued to plague” elections, while public assembly “helped ensure” voter eligibility. These virtual characters, animated by strong verbs, keep the narrative grounded in real-world forces. Barrett sharpens the issues with active framing.
In Section II.A., the plaintiffs “challenge” certain provisions but “do not challenge,” “do not contend,” and “do not object” to others. The Court “does not consider” constitutional theories that are not before it. In Section II.B., the governing texts “regulate,” “provide,” and “establish.”
Congress “inserted” language, “created” an exception, and “defined” Election Day. A separate statute covering overseas ballots “reinforces,” “confirms,” “requires,” “establishes,” “specifies,” and “mandates” key points. Precedents “defined,” “observed,” “emphasized,” and “explained” the framework.
When verbs become ‘zombie nouns’
The piece contrasts this approach with Baker v. Carr, the landmark reapportionment case authored by Justice William Brennan. There, crucial actors often disappear behind nominalizations, the so-called “zombie nouns” that drain movement from a sentence. Instead of people or institutions doing things, events simply “were effected” or “were preceded” by other abstractions.
The opinion reports an “injury” from a “classification,” yet rarely centers the voters or the officials who created the problem. Phrases like Tennessee’s standard “is based” on county population illustrate how passive constructions can leave readers searching for the doer. The cumulative effect is a thicket of terms like reapportionment that overwhelms the page.
By one tally, forms of “reapportionment” appear hundreds of times, far outnumbering vivid actions tied to clear subjects. That contrast in approach echoes current debates over how courts explain complex disputes about election rules, from classic apportionment fights to modern challenges like the US Chamber of Commerce sues Hawaii over Act 11 election law.
Lessons for clearer legal and policy writing
The broader takeaway aligns with Steven Pinker’s notion of “classic style,” in which a writer guides the reader’s eye to something concrete in the world. Keep verbs as verbs. Prefer real actors as subjects, pair them with actions, and put them early in sentences.
If the best subject is abstract, create a virtual character by choosing a vigorous verb. During line edits, hunt for forms of “to be” and for nominalizations that turn lively actions into inert nouns. Revise “reapportionment was effected” to “Tennessee reapportioned.”
Replace “the court’s disagreement is clear” with “the court disagrees.” Barrett’s opinion shows that when writers make something happen on the page, readers stay engaged, even in complex disputes about election rules.
One Response