Read the ruling

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

57% : Page 31 of 49 preempt state legislative choices."" (quoting Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., 571 U.S. 1, 14-15 (2013) (first quotation); Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67, 69 (1997) (second quotation))).
50% : The Court accordingly rejects Meadows's suggestion that the Take Care Clause provides a basis for finding executive authority over state election procedures.
49% : Page 30 of 49 Limits, Inc. V. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 833-34 (1995) ("[T]he Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority [to state legislatures] to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints.").
49% : Clause is a default provision; it invests the States with responsibility for the mechanics of congressional elections, but only so far as Congress declines to preempt state legislative choices."
46% : States have been tasked under the Elections Clause to "provide a complete code" for elections which ought to include "regulations 'relat[ing] to... prevention of fraud and corrupt practices [and] counting of votes...
46% : The Court is also unpersuaded by Meadows's contention that his acts involving state election procedures are within executive power to advise Congress.

*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.