Don't look to the Supreme Court to protect the election - The Boston Globe

Source: The Boston Globe - View Original Article
Published: Apr 29, 2020
Category:
Bias Rating:

95% Conservative


Bias Score Calculation:


Policies:

Gun Control

Sentiments

89% "The Supreme Court's embrace of voter suppression has steadily tightened.""
86% "In Shelby County v. Holder, the court invalidated the provision of the act that required states and counties with a history of voter discrimination ..."
80% "With the five Republican appointees making up the majority, the Supreme Court sanctioned additional forms of voter suppression in a challenge to the 1965 ..."
79% "History will also be unkind to the court's recent decisions.""
73% "Even if the Court gets a pass on Bush v. Gore because of its unique nature, its 2008 decision in Crawford v. Marion County ..."
69% "Those rulings are seen now as a stain on the court's legacy.""

We have listed the top 10 sentiments. More sentiments do exist. Please review the full article for more information.



*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization

Extremely
Liberal

Very
Liberal

Moderate-left

Neutral

Moderate-right

Very
Conservative

Extremely
Conservative

100%

100%

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

89% : The Supreme Court's embrace of voter suppression has steadily tightened.
86% : In Shelby County v. Holder, the court invalidated the provision of the act that required states and counties with a history of voter discrimination to get permission from a federal judge before changing election procedures in a way that could disadvantage a minority group.
80% : With the five Republican appointees making up the majority, the Supreme Court sanctioned additional forms of voter suppression in a challenge to the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
79% : History will also be unkind to the court's recent decisions.
73% : Even if the Court gets a pass on Bush v. Gore because of its unique nature, its 2008 decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board should have been a warning sign.
69% : Black Americans are three times more likely than white Americans to lack a driver's license or other government-issued photo ID.
69% : The ink was barely dry on the court's Shelby decision before Southern states, now free of the preclearance requirement, put new voter ID laws into place.
69% : Republican candidates for Wisconsin's State Assembly received only 45 percent of the popular vote in the 2018 election but won 63 percent of the seats.
69% : any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
69% : Those rulings are seen now as a stain on the court's legacy.
66% : Jump now to 2013.
65% : Claimed to prevent voter fraud, which studies consistently show to be as rare as hen's teeth, its real purpose was to suppress the minority vote.
63% : In virtually all such cases, Republican appointees on the court, and Republican appointees alone, have sanctioned voter suppression.
58% : They also happen to vote heavily Democratic.
58% : The court upheld a law passed by Indiana's Republican Legislature that required citizens to have a government-issued photo ID card, such as a driver's license or passport, in order to register to vote.
57% : Remarkably, the plain language of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause seems invisible to Republican-appointed justices.
54% : The Supreme Court thinks that form of voter suppression is OK too.
49% : The law targeted Native Americans who live on rural tribal lands, which don't have names and numbers on all their roads.
48% : The court let stand a 2017 law passed by North Dakota Republicans that requires residents to have written proof of a street address before they can vote.
48% : It regularly rejected legal challenges to literacy tests, relenting only after they were outlawed by the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
45% : Meanwhile, the damage to the integrity of our elections is mounting.
41% : It reads, "No state shall deny . . .
40% : How about the purging of voter rolls by Republican election officials to rid them mostly of voters who are registered as Democrats?
35% : It allowed the use of the poll tax decade after decade, failing to strike it down in state elections until its use was barred in federal elections by ratification of the 24th Amendment in 1964.
32% : It waited four decades to declare the South's "whites-only primaries" unconstitutional.
31% : Texas's law was the most brazenly partisan.
28% : It has positioned Wisconsin Republicans to gerrymander the state's elections again after the 2020 census, enabling them to lock down the state Legislature for yet another decade.
28% : The Supreme Court's Republican-appointed justices claim that there is no constitutional provision that would allow them to overturn such policies.
27% : " The court's Republican-appointed justices apparently can't conceive how that clause would protect the right to vote.
25% : This is the same court that figured out, in the Citizens United case, how to read the First Amendment in a way that gave corporations the same free speech rights as individuals and thus gives them freedom to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns.
24% : The Supreme Court has been down this road before.
20% : The list goes on, including Rucho v. Common Cause, the 2019 ruling that allows unrestricted partisan gerrymandering, the extreme version of which was concocted by Wisconsin's Republican-controlled Legislature.
18% : One could start the count in 2000, with Bush v. Gore, when the court in a 5-4 decision blocked the recount of the presidential vote in Florida, handing the presidency to George W. Bush.
9% : Excluded from the list were college IDs and state employee IDs, which Texas Democrats are more likely to have.
5% : Included on the list of acceptable forms of identification were gun licenses, which Texas Republicans disproportionately have.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap