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
AustraliaCanberra is particularly taking note of Donald Trump's unprecedented attack on his own Supreme Court, more so than the legal details of the ruling that blocks his restrictions on mail-in voting.
- 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
Australiafocused on the presidential reaction
the narrative devotes most of the space to Donald Trump's statement rather than the Court's reasoning.
Omission of the dissenting motives
the articles name the two dissenting judges without developing their motives.
- Switzerland
this perspective does not carry this information
What it leans on
Australia onlyAustraliaReliance on the executive's statement
the defense of the presidential attack by the Attorney General occupies a notable place in the narrative.
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