Today's Supreme Court is Anti-Voter | Washington Monthly

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

61% : This approach was faux judicial restraint: everyone knew that the Shelby County ruling effectively killed off Section 5, one of the most important tools to prevent many jurisdictions, mostly but not entirely in the South, from enacting discriminatory voting laws.
60% : States had to justify their election laws by pointing to a "compelling" interest -- that is, a really significant justification.
55% : States also had to demonstrate that their voting rules were "narrowly tailored" -- or that there was a close fit between the rationale for a voting law and how it achieved its purpose.
54% : But, as I show in my new book, The Court v.The Voters, in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, the Court pulled back from close judicial scrutiny of voting laws.
53% : Instead, litigants have focused on state constitutions, which generally offer more robust voting rights than the federal constitution.
46% : In 1983, the Court issued a decision in Anderson v. Celebrezze that struck down an Ohio law that had made it difficult for independent presidential candidate John Anderson to appear on the ballot in 1980, and while that specific holding seemed pro-democracy, the written opinion marked a change by creating a new test that relaxed the scrutiny the Court had previously given to voting laws.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.