Seven weeks from the midterms, the Supreme Court rejects Trump's mail-in voting restrictions
the same fact, two accounts
this subject is more divergent than 95% of the subjects analysed
SwitzerlandSwitzerland is measuring this judicial setback for Trump in light of its own practice of voting by mail, presented by an expert cited beyond the Sarine as being as secure as any other voting method.
What each one tells
opposition
ArgentinaBuenos Aires is particularly focused on the internal reckoning sparked by the setback: three judges appointed by Trump himself voted against his own administration, triggering unprecedented presidential fury against his own nominees.
- Switzerland
Relieved
the narrative uses the emotional vocabulary of the American press rather than first exposing the legal arguments of both sides.
Relying on a single expert
the analysis is based on a single interview rather than a plurality of American judicial or partisan sources.
What the account puts first
ArgentinaCustom
the narrative emphasizes Trump's anger towards his own judges rather than the legal substance of the dispute.
Relying on an official voice
the narrative extensively quotes the reaction of the Democratic Secretary of State of California, without an equivalent quote from a Trump administration official.
and the figures
7 votes against 2
Vote count of judges
majority votes out of 9
only one reports itthis press does not report this figure
this press does not report this figure
Share of mail-in votes
% of voters
this press does not report this figure