1 in 3 Americans lack confidence in Supreme Court, primarily Democrats: Poll
The AP-NORC Research Center poll, unveiled Friday, found that 1 in 3 adults in the U.S. remain wary of the Supreme Court — chiefly driven by Democratic skepticism.
Roughly 67 percent of those surveyed said they had at least 'some' confidence in the court — up from 56 percent in a poll conducted just after the decision three years ago upended the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. The same poll in 2020 — before the historic Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health case was decided — found 86 percent of people overall said they had confidence in the high court.
The most dramatic swings in public confidence over the three polls from 2020 to this year were seen on the Democratic side: About 80 percent said they had at least some confidence in the court in the 2020 poll, but that number plunged to 35 percent in 2022. The latest poll found about 43 percent of Democrats expressed confidence in the justices.
Meanwhile, Republicans surveyed in the latest poll were overwhelmingly more supportive of the court than in previous years, which has tracked conservative since President Trump appointed three justices to the bench during his first term.
About 90 percent of GOP respondents said that they have 'some' or a 'great deal of' confidence in the justices, showing only a slight shift from 2020 when about 95 percent of Republicans said the same.
Attitudes among independents has fluctuated some since 2020, but not as pointedly as the views among Democrats surveyed. More than three-quarters of independents polled in 2020 said they had 'some' or a 'great deal of' confidence in the Supreme Court. The number dipped to 52 percent in 2023 but bounced to 67 percent in the 2025 results.
The AP-NORC poll surveyed 1,347 adults across the country from July 10-14 and has a margin of error of 3.6 percentage points.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
43 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Texas dispute highlights nation's long history of partisan gerrymandering. Is it legal?
Who is responsible for gerrymandering? In many states, like Texas, the state legislature is responsible for drawing congressional districts, subject to the approval or veto of the governor. District maps must be redrawn every 10 years, after each census, to balance the population in districts. But in some states, nothing prevents legislatures from conducting redistricting more often. In an effort to limit gerrymandering, some states have entrusted redistricting to special commissions composed of citizens or bipartisan panels of politicians. Democratic officials in some states with commissions are now talking of trying to sidestep them to counter Republican redistricting in Texas. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up How does a gerrymander work? Advertisement If a political party controls both the legislature and governor's office — or has such a large legislative majority that it can override vetoes — it can effectively draw districts to its advantage. One common method of gerrymandering is for a majority party to draw maps that pack voters who support the opposing party into a few districts, thus allowing the majority party to win a greater number of surrounding districts. Another common method is for the majority party to dilute the power of an opposing party's voters by spreading them among multiple districts. Why is it called gerrymandering? The term dates to 1812, when Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry signed a bill redrawing state Senate districts to benefit the Democratic-Republican Party. Some thought an oddly shaped district looked like a salamander. A newspaper illustration dubbed it 'The Gerry-mander' — a term that later came to describe any district drawn for political advantage. Gerry lost re-election as governor in 1812 but won election that same year as vice president with President James Madison. Advertisement Is political gerrymandering illegal? Not under the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court, in a 2019 case originating from North Carolina, ruled that federal courts have no authority to decide whether partisan gerrymandering goes too far. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: 'The Constitution supplies no objective measure for assessing whether a districting map treats a political party fairly.' The Supreme Court noted that partisan gerrymandering claims could continue to be decided in state courts under their own constitutions and laws. But some state courts, including North Carolina's highest court, have ruled that they also have no authority to decide partisan gerrymandering claims. Are there any limits on redistricting? Yes. Though it's difficult to challenge legislative districts on political grounds, the Supreme Court has upheld challenges on racial grounds. In a 2023 case from Alabama, the high court said the congressional districts drawn by the state's Republican-led Legislature likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of Black residents. The court let a similar claim proceed in Louisiana. Both states subsequently redrew their districts. What does data show about gerrymandering? Statisticians and political scientists have developed a variety of ways to try to quantify the partisan advantage that may be attributable to gerrymandering. Republicans, who control redistricting in more states than Democrats, used the 2010 census data to create a strong gerrymander. An Associated Press analysis of that decade's redistricting found that Republicans enjoyed a greater political advantage in more states than either party had in the past 50 years. Advertisement But Democrats responded to match Republican gerrymandering after the 2020 census. The adoption of redistricting commissions also limited gerrymandering in some states. An AP analysis of the 2022 elections — the first under new maps — found that Republicans won just one more U.S. House seat than would have been expected based on the average share of the vote they received nationwide. That was one of the most politically balanced outcomes in years.
an hour ago
Texas and California joust for political advantage
AUSTIN, Texas -- The nation's two most populous states — California and Texas — grappled for political advantage in advance of 2026 elections that could reorder the balance of power in Washington and threaten President Donald Trump's agenda at the midpoint of his second term. In Texas, Democrats on Monday prevented their state's House of Representatives from moving forward, at least for now, with a redrawn congressional map sought by Trump to shore up Republicans' 2026 midterm prospects as his political standing falters. In California, Democrats encouraged by Gov. Gavin Newsom are considering new political maps that could slash five Republican-held House seats in the liberal-leaning state while bolstering Democratic incumbents in other battleground districts. The move is intended to undercut any GOP gains in Texas, potentially swinging House control and giving Democrats a counterweight to Trump on Capitol Hill. A draft plan aims to boost the Democratic margin in California to 48 of 52 congressional seats, according to a source familiar with the plan who was not authorized to discuss it publicly. That's up from the 43 seats the party now holds. It would need approval from lawmakers and voters, who may be skeptical to give it after handing redistricting power to an independent commission years ago. The rivalry puts a spotlight on two states that for years have dueled over jobs, innovation, prestige — even sports — with the backdrop of clashing political visions — one progressive, one conservative. After dozens of Democrats left Texas, the Republican-dominated House was unable to establish the quorum of lawmakers required to do business. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has made threats about removing members who are absent from their seats. Democrats counter that Abbott is using 'smoke and mirrors' to assert legal authority he does not have. The House quickly issued civil arrest warrants for absent Democrats and Abbott ordered state troopers to help find and arrest them, but lawmakers physically outside Texas are beyond the jurisdiction of state authorities. 'If you continue to go down this road, there will be consequences," House Speaker Rep. Dustin Burrows said from the chamber floor, later telling reporters that includes fines. Democrats' revolt and Abbott's threats intensified a fight over congressional maps that began in Texas but now includes Democratic governors who have pitched redrawing their district maps in retaliation — even if their options are limited. The dispute also reflects Trump's aggressive view of presidential power and his grip on the Republican Party nationally, while testing the longstanding balance of powers between the federal government and individual states. The impasse centers on Trump's effort to get five more GOP-leaning congressional seats in Texas, at Democrats' expense, before the midterms. That would bolster his party's chances of preserving its fragile U.S. House majority, something Republicans were unable to do in the 2018 midterms during Trump's first presidency. Republicans currently hold 25 of Texas' 38 seats. That's nearly a 2-to-1 advantage and already a wider partisan gap than the 2024 presidential results: Trump won 56.1% of Texas ballots, while Democrat Kamala Harris received 42.5%. According to the tentative California proposal, districts now held by Republican Reps. Ken Calvert, Darrell Issa, Kevin Kiley, David Valadao and Doug LaMalfa would see right-leaning voters shaved and Democratic voters boosted in a shift that would make it likely a left-leaning candidate would prevail in each race. In battleground districts held by Democratic Reps. Dave Min, Mike Levin and Derek Tran, the party's edge would be boosted to strengthen their hold on the seats, the source said. Democratic members of California's congressional delegation were briefed on the new map on Monday, according to a person familiar with the meeting who requested anonymity to discuss private conversations. The proposal is being circulated at the same time that Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has said he wants to advance partisan redistricting. He says he won't move ahead if Texas pauses its efforts. Newsom said he'd call a special election for the first week of November. Voters would weigh a new congressional map drawn by the Democratic-controlled Legislature. 'California will not sit by idly and watch this democracy waste away,' Newsom said Monday. More than 1,800 miles (2,900 kilometers) from Austin, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul appeared with Texas Democrats and argued their cause is national. 'We're not going to tolerate our democracy being stolen in a modern-day stagecoach heist by a bunch of law-breaking cowboys,' Hochul said Monday. 'If Republicans are willing to rewrite rules to give themselves an advantage, then they're leaving us with no choice: We must do the same. You have to fight fire with fire.' In Texas, legislators who left the state declined to say how long they'll hold out. 'We recognized when we got on the plane that we're in this for the long haul,' said Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer while in Illinois. Texas House Democratic Caucus leader Gene Wu said members 'will do whatever it takes' but added, 'What that looks like, we don't know.' Legislative walkouts often only delay passage of a bill, like in 2021, when many Democrats left Texas for 38 days to protest proposed voting restrictions. Once they returned, Republicans passed that measure. Lawmakers cannot pass bills in the 150-member House without two-thirds of members present. Democrats hold 62 seats in the majority-Republican chamber, and at least 51 left the state, according to a Democratic aide. The Texas Supreme Court held in 2021 that House leaders could 'physically compel the attendance' of missing members, but no Democrats were forcibly brought back to the state after warrants were served. Republicans answered by adopting $500 daily fines for lawmakers who don't show. Abbott, meanwhile, continues to make unsubstantiated claims that some lawmakers have committed felonies by soliciting money to pay for potential fines for leaving Texas during the session. ___
an hour ago
Australia selects Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries for $6.5B warship deal
WELLINGTON, New Zealand -- WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) — Australia said Tuesday it accepted a Japanese company's bid for a lucrative and hotly contested contract to build Australian warships, expected to be worth 10 billion Australian dollars ($6.5 billion). Mitsubishi Heavy Industries' Mogami-class frigate won the deal over rival Germany's MEKO A-200 from Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems. Japan's government lobbied heavily for the deal after missing out on Australia's submarines contract to a French company in 2016. 'This is clearly the biggest defense industry agreement that will ever have been struck between Japan and Australia,' Defense Minister Richard Marles told reporters when he announced the deal Tuesday. 'In fact, it's really one of the biggest defense exports that Japan has ever engaged in.' The fleet of 11 naval vessels will replace Australia's ageing fleet of ANZAC-class ships. Three of the frigates will be built in Japan, with the first scheduled to be operational Australia in 2030, and the remaining eight due for construction in Australia. Australian news outlets reported that the German company's bid had emphasized their vessel's cheaper price and their greater experience building ships abroad. But Pat Conroy, Australia's Minister for Defense Industry, said the Mogami-class frigate was a 'clear winner' when assessed by 'cost, capability and meeting our schedule of delivery.' The vessels have a range of up to 10,000 nautical miles (18,520 kilometers) and 32 vertical launch cells capable of launching long-range missiles. The frigates can operate with a crew of 90, compared to the 170 needed to operate the ANZAC-class ships. Mitsubishi's win was a boon for Japan's defense industry, which has not built naval vessels abroad before. Japan, whose only treaty ally is the United States, considers Australia a semi-ally and has increasingly sought to deepen bilateral military cooperation amid ongoing regional tensions in the disputed South China Sea. 'We welcome the decision by the Australian government as a major step to further elevate Japan's national security cooperation with Australia, which is our special strategic partner,' Japan's Defense Minister Gen Nakatani said Tuesday. Nakatani said co-developing the frigate will allow the two countries to train and operate with the same equipment and further improve operability and efficiency. Japan set up a joint taskforce of government and industry in an effort to win the bid. Australian officials said work on a binding commercial contract with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and the government of Japan would now begin, with a finalized agreement expected in 2026. They did not say how much each ship would cost or confirm a total figure for the package, citing ongoing negotiations. But Conroy said the government had allowed AU$10 billion for the project over the next 10 years. It forms part of the AU$55 billion that Australia has budgeted for the navy's entire surface combatant fleet during the same period. —-
