A National Debate with Local Consequences
Terms like "originalism" and "living constitutionalism" dominate federal judicial confirmation hearings — but they're rarely explained in plain language. More importantly, people seldom ask how these philosophies play out at the local and state court level, where most citizens actually encounter the judicial system.
Understanding these approaches helps voters make informed choices about who sits on the bench in their own community.
What Is Originalism?
Originalism holds that laws and constitutional provisions should be interpreted according to the meaning they had when they were enacted. Judges who identify as originalists ask: What did this text mean to those who wrote and ratified it?
There are two major strains:
- Original intent: focuses on the subjective intentions of the drafters.
- Original public meaning: focuses on how an ordinary, reasonable person at the time would have understood the text.
Originalists argue this approach constrains judicial discretion and prevents judges from substituting personal values for legal text.
What Is the Living Constitution Approach?
The living constitutionalism view holds that legal texts — particularly broad constitutional provisions — must be interpreted in light of evolving social standards and modern circumstances. Judges ask: What does this principle require today, given how society and our understanding of rights have developed?
Proponents argue that rigid historical interpretation would make the law unworkable in a changing world, and that the Constitution's framers themselves used broad language precisely because they anticipated that future generations would need to apply it to new situations.
How This Plays Out at the Local Court Level
For most local judges — hearing family law, civil disputes, misdemeanor criminal cases, and landlord-tenant matters — this debate is less central than it is for appellate or constitutional courts. Local judges primarily apply statutes and established precedents, not broad constitutional principles.
However, the underlying question of how to interpret ambiguous statutory language is deeply relevant:
- Does a judge read a statute narrowly, sticking to its literal text?
- Or does a judge consider legislative intent and the practical purpose the law was meant to serve?
These interpretive choices shape outcomes in real cases — including how protective orders are applied, how child custody statutes are construed, and how eviction procedures are interpreted when the law is silent on a specific issue.
Stephanie Davis's Approach
Stephanie Davis believes that judicial interpretation begins with the text of the law — always. Words matter, and the plain meaning of a statute is the starting point for any analysis. Where the text is ambiguous, she looks to legislative history and the practical purpose of the provision to fill in gaps — not personal preference.
This approach is methodical, transparent, and respectful of the role of the legislature as the law-making branch. A judge who makes up policy from the bench — in either direction — is not serving justice. They are substituting their own judgment for that of elected lawmakers.
Why This Matters When You Vote
When you vote for a judge, you are not just choosing a personality. You are choosing an interpretive methodology — a framework that will govern how the law is applied in your community for years to come. Ask candidates:
- How do you approach statutory interpretation when the text is unclear?
- Can you give an example of a time you ruled against your personal preference because the law required it?
- How do you balance consistency with the need to correct unjust outcomes?
These questions reveal far more about a judicial candidate than any endorsement or campaign slogan ever could.