These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information reporting that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.
- Overall, we rate Democracy Docket as left-biased based on editorial positions that favor the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record.
Bias Rating: LEFT
Factual Reporting: HIGH
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
Established in 2020 and based in Washington, DC, Democracy Docket is a progressive news source focused on voting rights and electoral court cases. Marc Elias, former counsel for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 and John Kerry’s 2004 campaigns, founded Elias Law Group in 2021. He previously led the political law practice at Perkins Coie and represented major Democratic organizations and US Congressional leaders.
Funded by / Ownership
Democracy Docket funds its operations through donations with no specific mention of corporate, political, or other institutional funding sources on its “About Us” page. However, the Democracy Docket Legal Fund, also founded by Marc Elias, is a fiscally sponsored project of the Hopewell Fund, indicating additional support structures beyond public donations.
Analysis / Bias
Democracy Docket, known for its focus on voting rights, claims a progressive stance. This analysis examines their articles to assess whether they reflect this perspective, examining their use of emotionally loaded language, framing of issues, and the factual accuracy of their reporting.
The article “How ID Requirements Harm Marginalized Communities and Their Right to Vote” exemplifies Democracy Docket’s progressive bias and criticizes voting ID laws for their complexity and negative impact on marginalized communities. It uses emotionally loaded language, describing the ID acquisition process as “long, winding and confusing.” It cites sources like the Movement Advancement Project, Bloomberg, and the Supreme Court’s Georgia ruling to back its argument.
Another article, “Two Arizona Voter Suppression Laws Go to Trial,” characterizes the Arizona laws as “voter suppression” laws, indicating a bias from the outset. The language used is emotionally loaded, with references to the laws putting “thousands of eligible voters’ registrations at risk” and describing Republican actions as attempts to “circumvent the Supreme Court’s ruling.” Using terms like “anti-voting scheme” and “radical legal theory” further emphasizes a critical, oppositional stance.
The article supports its arguments with references to specific legal challenges, court rulings, and legislative actions, indicating a foundation in actual events and legal proceedings. It cites specific bills (HB 2492 and 2243), lawsuits, and sources like eac.gov, azsos.gov.,and PolitiFact, providing a factual basis for its claims.
In summary, while Democracy Docket exhibits a clear progressive bias in its language and framing, it substantiates its positions with factual information, legal references, and reports, demonstrating a balance between advocacy and factual journalism.
Failed Fact Checks
- None in the Last 5 years
Overall, we rate Democracy Docket as left-biased based on editorial positions that favor the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record. (M. Huitsing 11/19/2023)
Last Updated on November 27, 2023 by Media Bias Fact Check
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.